Smash and Grab Adjudication Enforced: Piperhill v NIHE in the High Court of Northern Ireland

The High Court of Northern Ireland recently heard a pivotal case between Piperhill and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) [2025] NIKB 47, centring on the enforcement of an adjudication worth over £725,000.

It concerned the enforcement of what is colloquially known as, a smash and grab adjudication (one based on a technicality where a responding party fails to respond to a payment claim on time) decision. Such adjudications are commonplace in England & Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, all falling under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act.

In this case, Piperhill was awarded a decision in adjudication to the sum of £725,568.35 and sought to enforce it through the High Court of Northern Ireland, pursuant to Order 14 of the Rules of the Court of Judicature (Northern Ireland) 1980.

For tailored advice on adjudication strategy, enforcement, or payment disputes, contact Quigg Golden, trusted experts in construction law and adjudication across the UK and Ireland

The Adjudication

Piperhill commenced adjudication proceedings against NIHE on 21 March 2025, stating, amongst other things, “the dispute concerns NIHE’s failures to pay the notified sum”.

The notice of adjudication (“the Notice”) set out that NIHE failed to issue a valid pay less notice in accordance with the Contract. As such, Piperhill claimed that the sum they applied for (in a payment application) on 17 February 2025 became the notified sum in line with the contract and the Construction Contracts (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 (as amended).

Accordingly, the dispute crystallised on 13 March 2025 (final date for payment) when NIHE failed to pay the claimed sum.

The Referral Notice focussed upon a failure from NIHE to comply with clause 13.11, which stated:

“…any notice given for the purpose of clause 5 or as a pay less notice must be delivered by hand or sent by email and, on the same day, sent by first class post.”

NIHE’s Response argued Piperhill was estopped from relying on strict terms of clause 13.11 in relation to methods of service. NIHE also made the case that the purported pay less notices were valid.

Piperhill argued that the notices were, in fact, defective. They said they didn’t comply with clause 50.6 or Y2.2. These clauses governed the content of the pay less notice and stipulated the requirements for these to be considered valid. NIHE then adopted the argument that the adjudicator did not have jurisdiction to decide that the notices were defective but that, in any event, the notices were not defective.

The adjudicator formed the view that the Notice provided him with jurisdiction to decide that the notices were invalid in respect of their content. The Adjudicator found in favour of Piperhill that the Notified sum was due for payment plus interest.

The Judgment

Piperhill subsequently brought the case to the High Court of Northern Ireland seeking enforcement, pursuant to Order 14 of the Rules of the Court of Judicature (Northern Ireland) 1980.

Justice Humphreys confirmed that there are limited circumstances where adjudicators’ decisions are not enforced, and it is well established that adjudicators’ decisions are typically enforced whether wrong “in fact or law” – they are “rough justice” and full under the “pay now, argue later” rule. This means that in enforcement, adjudicators’ decisions will not be reopened – they will be checked for fair procedure, and generally are rubberstamped, meaning the case can only be reopened via a separate and fresh litigation, which in our experience is rare.

Humphreys J considered that, “the court must ascertain what a reasonable person, with all the background knowledge available to the parties at the time, would have understood the words in the document to mean.”

In this vein, it was held that the adjudicator had jurisdiction to decide upon the matter. Humphreys J averred that although the referral was narrow in its arguments, focussing only upon service, the notice (which sets the scope of the dispute) took a wider approach as it was concerned with the failure to pay the notified sum which required the adjudicator, as a matter of law, to consider whether the payless notices complied with the contract.

Humphreys J added, in the alternative, that although the notice determines the scope of the dispute, the defendant is entitled to advance any defence open to it but, as the authorities recognise, this may cause the ambit of an adjudication to be unavoidably widened.

It was also addressed by the Court, that it is not permissible to commence a true value adjudication without complying with the sum ordered in an earlier adjudication.

Piperhill’s adjudication decision was enforced, with the Court awarding the notified sum of £725,568.35 plus accrued interest to the date of the decision.

Discussion

This judgment reinforces what we already know about smash and grab adjudications. Courts are strict in their application of the obligations on the payer and have no qualms in enforcing them.

The key points for parties to note are:

• Parties on both sides must ensure their notices are in accordance with the contractual provisions;
• Adjudicators’ decisions will not be reopened in court to assess correctness in fact or law;
• Respondents should be cautious of the defence they put forward as it may result in the scope of the dispute widening; and
• Complying with an obligation to pay a sum ordered in an adjudication is required prior to commencing a true value adjudication.

Quigg Golden can provide further advice and guidance on any of the issues above, do not hesitate to contact us here.