There is a difference between keeping a construction project moving and ensuring its contract is properly administered. 

A recent court decision highlights the financial consequences when payment certification comes under scrutiny.

In Coventry & Warwickshire Development Partnership LLP v Avison Young (UK) Limited [2026] EWHC 2319 (TCC), the Technology and Construction Court enforced an adjudicator’s decision awarding the employer £8.7 million, plus interest, in a dispute over payment certification.

The case raises an important question: are project teams doing enough to challenge the figures presented to them?

When payment certification goes wrong

Avison Young acted as project manager and supervisor under an NEC contract for the Gateway South development in Coventry.

The employer alleged that failures in assessing contractor payments had resulted in substantial overpayments. Concerns included the assessment of earthworks quantities and the evidence used to support reported progress.

Following the insolvency of contractor Buckingham Group Contracting Ltd, the employer pursued a claim against Avison Young.

The adjudicator awarded £8,729,179.33 plus interest. The court subsequently rejected Avison Young’s challenges to enforcement.

Avison Young disputed the allegations and maintained that its payment assessments had been carried out appropriately.

An important distinction remains: the court was deciding whether to enforce the adjudicator’s decision, not conducting a fresh trial of the underlying professional negligence allegations.

Nevertheless, the case highlights the potential financial consequences of disputed payment assessments, particularly when an insolvent contractor leaves an employer unable to recover overpayments.

Efficiency cannot replace scrutiny.

Anyone involved in construction understands the pressure to keep projects moving. Contractors need cash flow, employers expect progress, and commercial teams must work to demanding deadlines.

But a contractor’s valuation is a claim for payment, not proof that the amount claimed is due.

Under NEC contracts, payment assessments must follow the relevant contractual valuation mechanism. That requires professional judgement and appropriate evidence, rather than simply accepting figures because they appear reasonable.

The challenge is balancing efficient administration with the scrutiny needed to justify a certification decision.

Project managers should not be expected to independently recreate every calculation. They should, however, recognise when information needs further examination and challenge figures that cannot be adequately substantiated.

What should good project management look like?

Project managers are often valued for maintaining momentum and resolving problems. Those qualities matter, but so does the willingness to question a valuation when the evidence does not support it.

That can mean requesting further information, challenging reported progress or having difficult conversations with a contractor.

These actions may create short-term commercial discomfort, but avoiding those conversations can carry its own risks.

The Avison Young decision does not establish a new professional standard, nor does every incorrect payment certificate amount to negligence. It does, however, provide a timely reminder that certification decisions can have significant financial consequences.

My view is straightforward: challenging an unsupported valuation is not an obstacle to progress. It is part of responsible contract administration.

But how much responsibility should project managers carry for the accuracy of contractor valuations, particularly when commercial pressure is mounting? Is the industry asking enough of those certifying payments, or placing too much responsibility on individuals working under demanding conditions?