The case was an application from Quadro Services Ltd (“QSL”), the Claimant, for summary judgment to enforce an adjudication decision against the Defendant, Creagh Concrete Products Ltd (“CCLP”). The adjudication decision QSL sought to enforce, was for CCLP to pay QSL three outstanding invoices under a construction contract (the “Contract”), totalling £40,026. The issue of the case was whether CCLP had a real prospect of defending the case on the basis that the adjudicator had lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate because the adjudication process had evaluated the validity of three separate invoices, which CCLP argued ought to have been referred separately.

QSL had entered into an oral agreement construction Contract, without written adjudication provisions, with CCPL, to provide construction labour over the course of the Contract. QSL made cumulative applications for payment, each application being for the total value of work done, and issued invoices dated 24 July 2020, 27 August 2020, and 12 October 2020 raising the total by £17,910, £16,800, and £5,316 respectively, totalling £40,026 inclusive of VAT. CCLP’s Senior Quantity Surveyor expressly accepted the first two invoices but did not respond to the third. Despite this, CCLP failed to pay QSL within 30 days of receipt of each invoice, nor did CCLP issue any valid pay-less notices. QSL sought an adjudication decision that CCPL should pay the total sum due.

In the adjudication QSL understood that the apparent reason for CCLP’s non-payment was to set off purported damages/losses from a separate contract in Newcastle against the Contract, noting this in its referral to adjudication. CCLP rejected the adjudication entirely, on the grounds that no singular application had been made for the total amount, therefore, the invoices constituted separate issues to be dealt with in separate adjudication proceedings. Consequently, CCPL argued the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction, and discontinued participating in the adjudication. QSL submitted that the dispute concerned failure to pay a debt and that the invoices were valid and constituted sub-issues to a singular cause of action for the total £40,026. The adjudicator found that the invoices were indeed sub-issues under the same dispute, and therefore the adjudicator had jurisdiction to determine the matter. The adjudicator found, noting CCLP’s express acceptance of the first two and lack of challenge to the third invoice, that CCLP must pay the £40,026, £2,078.70 interest, £100 compensation, as well as costs of £2,633.75. CCLP failed to pay the award, leading to QSL’s action seeking summary judgment.

CCPL’s sole position in defence was that the adjudicator had lacked jurisdiction, contending; QSL’s solicitor’s letter was the only evidence in favour of joint consideration of the invoices; if the validity of the invoices could be individually determined they would likely constitute separate disputes; the validity of the Contract invoices could, in fact, be determined separately; and, as the three invoices were distinguishable from each other, without express agreement to the third, they were therefore matters to be adjudicated separately.

QSL maintained that the adjudicator had jurisdiction as the cumulative invoices constituted sub-issues to the validity of individual invoices under a singular contract dispute for the total sum, capable of being adjudicated. Furthermore, there is no legal principle that the invoices under the Contract should necessarily arise as separate disputes.

The Judge, Ms. Justice Watson, held that “one dispute can include numerous sub-issues … capable of being determined independently from each other”. Disagreeing with CCPL’s position, the Judge determined that the payment requests were clearly linked, since they were cumulative, and that although they could technically be decided individually, that did not prevent the invoices from being sub-issues within the wider dispute. Notably, the Judge explained that from a cost perspective, adjudicating on the invoices separately would have put the parties at “very significant cost and inconvenience”. Absent of pay-less notices, the invoices had become notified sums due to be paid. Subsequently the Judge found that the adjudication concerned a singular matter, the question of whether QCL was entitled to the £40,026 payment, for which the adjudicator had rightly had jurisdiction. Ms. Justice Watson granted summary judgment in favour of QSL, as CCPL had no real prospect of defending the claim with no proposed defence besides lack of jurisdiction.

This case usefully demonstrates that multiple cumulative invoices can form a single dispute capable of being adjudicated upon. The lesson to be learned is that if there are grounds to dispute, relevant, prompt, and continuing action should be taken. If CCPL had a reason to dispute QSL’s invoices under the Contract, CCPL ought to have issued valid pay-less notices promptly after issue.