Successful A1PI claim in construction adjudication – lessons for us all

16 April 2013 by

showImage.php_Whyte and Mackay Ltd v. Blyth & Blyth Consulting Engineers Ltd, Outer House, Court of Session, Lord Malcolm, 9 April 2013 read judgment

One to read if you have any interest in summary justice in civil litigation – not simply for those who can tell their rebar from their roof tile.

The first instance Scottish judge refused to order enforcement of a £3m adjudication – a form of interim justice -in complex professional negligence proceedings, because to do so would have involved a violation of A1P1 – the right to property. But he ruled against a similar submission based on Article 6 – the right to a fair trial.

Construction adjudication was designed to right one form of injustice – the substantial main contractor sitting on a sub-contractor’s money until cash flow made the subbie (say, a small bricklaying company) take a significantly reduced sum because the bank would otherwise have closed him down. But this case is a good example of where that system has simply replaced it with another form of potential injustice.

Back to the start. Whyte and Mackay – see the picture for those not fond of a dram – wanted a new bottling plant. They engaged the defender engineers to design its structure. It was built in 2004, and cracking started in 2009. A claim was notified in 2011, and the defenders disputed it.  The relevant adjudication started in February 2012. On 2 March 2012 it was referred to the adjudicator. The rules require the adjudicator to decide the case within 28 days, though this was extended by a further 14 days. In the event a hearing took place at the bottling plant on 30 March, and the adjudicator issued his decision on 9 April. That decision is enforceable by a court.  Unless the court refuses to enforce it, the aggrieved party must pay up and then seek to recoup the damages in later proceedings. Note, above all else, the extreme timetable – think of deciding any other form of multi-million pound negligence case in 6 weeks from start to finish.

The engineers refused to pay, and their challenge was upheld by the judge. But before we see why, we should note what exactly the £3m award consisted of.  Almost all was future expense. W&M wanted to carry out interim remedial works in the near future (£574,000) but the lion’s share of the claim was £2.8m being the cost of putting in piled foundations at the end of their lease of the building – 2035/6, yes 22 years hence – and the loss of production caused thereby.

Now the courts in both England and Scotland have evolved very strict rules on enforcement of these adjudication decisions. It is no good saying to a court that the adjudicator got it wrong. The best example of this was a case called Bouygues where the adjudicator calculated the gross sum due between the parties but forgot that one party was then entitled to hold on to the 5% retention. Both sides agreed that he was wrong to do so, but the courts still enforced the award – not to do so would lead to endless disputes on enforcement which would rid the whole procedure of its teeth.

So the courts have come up with this distinction  – one might say a somewhat blurred one – between an adjudicator who comes to the wrong answer (which you cannot challenge) and someone who answers the wrong question (which you can). The reason for these strict rules is important – if you enable this rough and ready procedure to be microscopically lawyered over when it goes before the courts, then everybody will go before the courts – and there is no point in the rough and ready in the first place.

The A1P1 claim

The engineers said that to make an award of damages for (essentially) future losses in a summary procedure breached A1P1. It was all very well to come up with rough justice when you were deciding what sums had already become due, but when you were engaging with a mass of hypotheticals over the next 20+ years, what was the point of coming up with an answer that was almost certainly wrong. And a wrong decision could put one party into liquidation or save the other from the same fate: [38].

The A1P1 claim involved a complication from the engineers’ perspective. They were of course insured. So W&M said that the engineers’ “possessions” were not in play. There was then a debate about the extent to which the engineers were financially involved if they paid up on the adjudication decision, given that they had an excess (think first £250 on your car insurance) which they had to bear. The judge decided that he could not assume that the engineers would be unaffected by any enforcement of the decision. Hence, there was an interference with the engineers’ A1P1 rights.

But could this interference be justified? The judge put it this way at [44]-[45]

Would there be a fair or an unfair balance between the competing interests? Would enforcement require the defenders to bear an individual and excessive burden, keeping in mind that there has been no identification of the parties’ true rights and obligations?
In my opinion, the issue can be approached as follows. There was no pressing need for a speedy provisional decision in respect of the pursuers’ large claim based upon the alleged professional negligence of the defenders. The dispute arose long after completion of the contract. By then the premises were leased by the pursuers from a third party. The settlement problem does not and will not prevent the use of the premises for their intended purpose. While relatively modest sums may require to be expended over the next few years by way of inspection and remedial works, no major losses will be incurred for many years to come. In the meantime, the pursuers are considerably in pocket, in the sense that they did not incur the extra costs involved in the piling works. If ultimately the defenders are successful, there is no guarantee that the defenders will recoup any monies paid to the pursuers, and there is no provision for state compensation for any such loss.

Hence, enforcing the award was not justifiable:

Given the very particular circumstances of this case, to enforce this award would not be justifiable as a proportionate measure in pursuit of a legitimate aim. It would not strike a fair balance between protection of the defenders’ fundamental rights and the protection of any public interest reasons for the interference.

Article 6(1)

This was equally interesting, though a breach was not established. Article 6(1) only applies to a “determination” of civil rights and obligations, so W&M’s point was that there was no such determination. The decision was entirely provisional and could be set aside as and when the full dispute was heard. The judge accepted this, though it gave him significant pause for thought in the light of the decision of the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR in Micalef v. Malta. This was a storm in a Maltese teacup about whether one neighbour could hang out washing over the other’s courtyard. From such small beginnings come important cases. C got an interim injunction. The Court said that it had re-thought its old caselaw. Where an interim measure could be considered effectively to determine the civil right, Article 6(1) would be applicable.  This applied to the circumstances in which the Maltese interim injunction was obtained.

The judge rejected the argument on the facts. An adjudicator’s decision is expressly provisional, and hence does not “effectively” determine the rights in question.

Inadequate reasons

The judge did not enforce the decision on another ground. The engineers had argued before the adjudicator that W&M could not prove any loss, because W&M had edited out of the specification piling of other parts of the factory, for costs-saving reasons. So, went the argument, had the engineers recommended piling for the rest of the factory in the first place (which they didn’t) W&M would have similarly ignored those recommendations. If this argument was right, end of claim. But not a whisper in the adjudicator’s decision on this important issue.

Again the courts have been very sparing in allowing such challenges to succeed. Adjudicators have to work against extraordinary timescales, and expecting their decisions to read like those of judges after a 4 week trial is just unrealistic. But not responding to this one offended against the principles of natural justice. Nor did the adjudicator address a further point, which was the claim assumed that £1 paid in 2035 was worth £1 now – surely not, because you have 22 years to make money with your pound if you get it now.


The case is a salutary reminder that some laudable attempts to do justice quickly and cheaply end up wreaking significant injustice on the loser. In many circumstances, if the first decision-maker gets it wrong, you can appeal. But in our onward rush towards swift and cheap justice, we need to keep our eyes on a rather different goal. Many cases can be sorted summarily but the right case cannot be hurried, because, if you do, you misunderstand it and someone loses horribly. Babies and bathwater come to mind.

The interesting question is just how wide this decision goes. Its main thrust is that there is no rush to enforce a claim which is all about future loss. But that itself is an important subcategory of these claims. Quite often parties have not done remedial works before the matter first comes before a decision-maker. But watch out for attempts to argue that summary justice more generally needs to be wary of offending against A1P1.


Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




7/7 Bombings 9/11 A1P1 Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology birds directive blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity circumcision citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Cologne Commission on a Bill of Rights common buzzard common law communications competition confidentiality confiscation order conscientious objection consent conservation constitution contact order contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Criminal Legal Aid criminal records Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty declaration of incompatibility defamation DEFRA Democracy village deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention devolution Dignitas dignity Dignity in Dying diplomacy director of public prosecutions disability Disability-related harassment disciplinary hearing disclosure Discrimination Discrimination law disease divorce DNA doctors does it matter? domestic violence Dominic Grieve don't ask don't ask don't tell don't tell Doogan and Wood double conviction DPP guidelines drones duty of care ECHR economic and social rights economic loss ECtHR Education election Employment Environment environmental information Equality Act Equality Act 2010 ethics Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice european disability forum European Sanctions Blog Eurozone euthanasia evidence Exclusion extra-jurisdictional reach of ECHR extra-territoriality extradition extradition act extradition procedures extradition review extraordinary rendition Facebook Facebook contempt facial recognition fair procedures Fair Trial faith courts fake news Family family courts family law family legal aid Family life fatal accidents act Fertility fertility treatment FGM fisheries fishing rights foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Association Freedom of Expression freedom of information Freedom of Information Act 2000 freedom of movement freedom of speech free speech game birds gangbo gang injunctions Garry Mann gary dobson Gary McFarlane gay discrimination Gay marriage gay rights gay soldiers Gaza Gaza conflict Gender General Dental Council General Election General Medical Council genetic discrimination genetic engineering genetic information genetics genetic testing Google government Grenfell grooming Gun Control gwyneth paltrow gypsies habitats habitats protection Halsbury's Law Exchange hammerton v uk happy new year harassment Hardeep Singh Haringey Council Harkins and Edwards Health healthcare health insurance Heathrow heist heightened scrutiny Henry VII Henry VIII herd immunity hereditary disorder High Court of Justiciary Hirst v UK HIV HJ Iran HM (Iraq) v The Secretary of state for the home department [2010] EWCA Civ 1322 Holder holkham beach holocaust homelessness Home Office Home Office v Tariq homeopathy hooding Hounslow v Powell House of Commons Housing housing benefits Howard League for Penal Reform how judges decide cases hra damages claim Hrant Dink HRLA HS2 hs2 challenge hts Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority human genome human rights Human Rights Act Human Rights Act 1998 human rights advocacy Human rights and the UK constitution human rights commission human rights conventions human rights damages Human Rights Day human rights decisions Human Rights Information Project human rights news Human Rights Watch human right to education human trafficking hunting Huntington's Disease HXA hyper injunctions Igor Sutyagin illegality defence immigration Immigration/Extradition Immigration Act 2014 immigration appeals immigration detention immigration judge immigration rules immunity increase of sanction India Indonesia Infrastructure Planning Committee inherent jurisdiction inherited disease Inhuman and degrading treatment injunction Inquest Inquests insult insurance insurmountable obstacles intelligence services act intercept evidence interception interests of the child interim remedies international international conflict international criminal court international humanitarian law international human rights international human rights law international law international treaty obligations internet internet service providers internment internship inuit investigation investigative duty in vitro fertilisation Iran iranian bank sanctions Iranian nuclear program Iraq Iraqi asylum seeker Iraq War Ireland irrationality islam Israel Italy iTunes IVF ivory ban jackson reforms Janowiec and Others v Russia ( Japan Jason Smith Jeet Singh Jefferies Jeremy Corbyn jeremy hunt job Jogee John Hemming John Terry joint enterprise joint tenancy Jon Guant Joseph v Spiller journalism judaism judges Judges and Juries judging Judicial activism judicial brevity judicial deference judicial review Judicial Review reform judiciary Julian Assange jurisdiction jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Act Justice and Security Bill Justice and Security Green Paper Justice Human Rights Awards JUSTICE Human Rights Awards 2010 just satisfaction Katyn Massacre Kay v Lambeth Kay v UK Ken Clarke Ken Pease Kerry McCarthy Kettling Kings College Klimas koran burning Labour Lady Hale lansley NHS reforms LASPO Law Commission Law Pod UK Law Society Law Society of Scotland leave to enter leave to remain legal aid legal aid cuts Legal Aid desert Legal Aid Reforms legal blogs Legal Certainty legal naughty step Legal Ombudsman legal representation legitimate expectation let as a dwelling Leveson Inquiry Levi Bellfield lewisham hospital closure lgbtq liability Libel libel reform Liberal Democrat Conference Liberty libraries closure library closures Libya licence conditions licence to shoot life insurance life sentence life support limestone pavements limitation lisbon treaty Lithuania Litigation litvinenko live exports local authorities locked in syndrome london borough of merton London Legal Walk London Probation Trust Lord Bingham Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Blair Lord Goldsmith lord irvine Lord Judge speech Lord Kerr Lord Lester Lord Neuberger Lord Phillips Lord Rodger Lord Sumption Lord Taylor LSC tender luftur rahman machine learning MAGA Magna Carta mail on sunday Majority Verdict Malcolm Kennedy malice Margaret Thatcher Margin of Appreciation margin of discretion Maria Gallastegui marriage material support maternity pay Matthew Woods Mattu v The University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust [2011] EWHC 2068 (QB) Maya the Cat Mba v London Borough Of Merton McKenzie friend Media and Censorship Medical medical liability medical negligence medical qualifications medical records medicine mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Capacity Act 2005 Mental Health mental health act mental health advocacy mental health awareness Mental Health Courts Mental illness merits review MGN v UK michael gove Midwives migrant crisis Milly Dowler Ministerial Code Ministry of Justice Ministry of Justice cuts misfeasance in public office modern slavery morality morocco mortuaries motherhood Motor Neurone disease Moulton Mousa MP expenses Mr Gul Mr Justice Eady MS (Palestinian Territories) (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department murder murder reform Musician's Union Muslim NADA v. SWITZERLAND - 10593/08 - HEJUD [2012] ECHR 1691 naked rambler Naomi Campbell nationality National Pro Bono Week national security Natural England nature conservation naturism Nazi negligence Neuberger neuroscience Newcastle university news News of the World new Supreme Court President NHS NHS Risk Register Nick Clegg Nicklinson Niqaab Noise Regulations 2005 Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance nursing nursing home Obituary Occupy London offensive jokes Offensive Speech offensive t shirt oil spill olympics open justice oppress OPQ v BJM orchestra Osama Bin Laden Oxford University paramountcy principle parental rights parenthood parking spaces parliamentary expenses parliamentary expenses scandal Parliamentary sovereignty Parliament square parole board passive smoking pastor Terry Jones patents Pathway Students Patrick Quinn murder Pensions persecution personal data Personal Injury personality rights perversity Peter and Hazelmary Bull PF and EF v UK Phil Woolas phone hacking phone taps physical and mental disabilities physician assisted death Pinnock Piracy Plagiarism planning planning human rights planning system plebgate POCA podcast points Poland Police police investigations police liability police misconduct police powers police surveillance Policy Exchange report political judges Politics Politics/Public Order poor reporting Pope Pope's visit Pope Benedict portal possession proceedings power of attorney PoW letters to ministers pre-nup pre-nuptial Pre-trial detention predator control pregnancy press press briefing press freedom Prince Charles prince of wales princess caroline of monaco principle of subsidiarity prior restraint prison Prisoners prisoners rights prisoners voting prisoner vote prisoner votes prisoner voting prison numbers Prisons prison vote privacy privacy injunction privacy law through the front door Private life private nuisance private use proceeds of crime Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecution Protection of Freedoms Act Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest protest camp protest rights Protocol 15 psychiatric hospitals Public/Private public access publication public authorities Public Bodies Bill public inquiries public interest public interest environmental litigation public interest immunity Public Order Public Sector Equality Duty putting the past behind quango quantum quarantine Queen's Speech queer in the 21st century R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 895 R (on the application of) v The General Medical Council [2013] EWHC 2839 (Admin) R (on the application of EH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 2569 (Admin) R (on the application of G) v The Governors of X School Rabone and another v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust [2012] UKSC 2 race relations Rachel Corrie Radmacher Raed Salah Mahajna Raed Saleh Ramsgate raptors rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion resuscitation RightsInfo right to die right to family life right to life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials security services sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa south african constitution Spain special advocates spending cuts Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance swine flu Syria Tax Taxi technology Terrorism terrorism act tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine unfair consultation universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vaccination vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: