Too Little, Too Late: The TCC Rejects Last Minute Jurisdictional Challenges in Danion v IPS Roofing 24 September 2026

In Danion Ltd v IPS Roofing Ltd [2026] EWHC 2364 (TCC), the Technology and Construction Court (the “TCC”) reaffirmed its robust approach to enforcing adjudicators’ decisions. The case considered two of the most common grounds for resisting enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision: alleged lack of jurisdiction and breach of natural justice.

Introduction

On 16 March 2026, the TCC handed down its decision in the case of Danion Ltd v IPS Roofing Ltd, in which District Judge Baldwin upheld the adjudicator’s award in favour of Danion Ltd (“Danion”) and rejected both challenges advanced by IPS Roofing Ltd (“IPS”) on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and breach of natural justice. In doing so, the judge emphasised that a party must raise jurisdictional objections at the earliest opportunity and continue to reserve its position throughout the adjudication if it wishes to rely on those objections subsequently. The decision also illustrated the TCC’s common-sense approach to interpreting Notices of Adjudication and its reluctance to adopt an overly literal interpretation of isolated wording that is inconsistent with the notice’s overall substance. More generally, the judgment underscores the limited circumstances in which the Court will refuse to enforce an adjudicator’s decision.

Although judgment was handed down in March 2026, it has only recently become publicly available.

Factual background

Danion, as a subcontractor, was engaged by IPS, as the contractor, to carry out scaffolding works under a JCT Standard Building Sub-Contract dated 2 August 2023. Danion submitted its Application for Payment No. 20 on 28 July 2025. IPS disputed the valuation and sought deductions for liquidated damages and delay costs. Danion then commenced adjudication in October 2025, seeking a determination that the deductions were invalid and that the sums withheld by IPS were payable.

The adjudicator determined that IPS owed Danion approximately £176,000 (excluding VAT) and concluded that IPS was not entitled to make the deductions asserted in respect of delay costs and liquidated damages. When IPS failed to make payment, Danion commenced enforcement proceedings.

The enforcement proceedings were challenged by IPS on two grounds, summarised as follows by the judge:

“(1) lack of jurisdiction, namely deciding undisputed matters outside of the adjudicator’s jurisdiction and (2) breach of the rules of natural justice, namely by the adjudicator employing methodologies and taking points not put to the parties during the adjudication.”

Lack of jurisdiction

IPS argued that the adjudicator had decided a different dispute from that referred in the Notice of Adjudication (the “Notice”). Specifically, IPS contended that the adjudicator had decided a true valuation dispute rather than a notified sum dispute (also known as a “smash and grab” adjudication). By undertaking a valuation exercise, IPS alleged that the adjudicator had exceeded his jurisdiction. IPS also relied on the fact that the Notice included a mistaken reference to valuation 19 rather than valuation 20.

District Judge Baldwin rejected this challenge and held that IPS ought to have reserved its position during the adjudication if it intended to challenge the adjudicator’s jurisdiction. By participating in the adjudication without doing so, IPS was deemed to have waived its right to raise a jurisdictional objection at the enforcement stage. The judge noted that this position regarding the timing of jurisdictional challenges is “well established” and cited Coulson LJ’s judgment in Bresco Electrical Services Ltd v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 27.

The judge was also unpersuaded by IPS’ arguments regarding the contents of the Notice, finding that, when construed as a whole, the relief sought by Danion was not limited to the figure initially identified in the Notice, but extended to the revised figure ultimately advanced, or such other sum as the adjudicator decided was due. The suggestion that a mistaken reference to valuation 19 rather than valuation 20 in the Notice affected jurisdiction was similarly rejected, as an objective observer would have recognised the reference as an obvious mistake and understood that the adjudication concerned valuation 20. This undermined IPS’ argument that the adjudication had been commenced as a “smash and grab” adjudication. District Judge Baldwin also highlighted that IPS had itself engaged with the valuation of the deductions during the adjudication.

Breach of natural justice

Secondly, IPS argued that the adjudicator had breached the rules of natural justice by: (i) applying the burden of proof in a way that was unfair; and (ii) using an “eccentric” critical delay path analysis without giving the parties notice or an opportunity to make submissions.