Seven adjudications. Seven different adjudicators. One construction project.

Yet despite securing three favourable decisions involving more than £700,000 in disputed deductions, a contractor still faced an enforceable judgment exceeding £1.6 million.

The recent Technology and Construction Court decision in Avanton Capital CC Ltd v LUC Construction Ltd [2026] EWHC 2630 (TCC), delivered on 15 October 2026, highlights an issue I believe construction businesses need to take more seriously.

Winning individual legal arguments does not necessarily mean you are protecting your overall commercial position.

How did seven adjudications lead to a £1.6 million problem?

The dispute concerned a design and build contract for three industrial units in London.

Following practical completion in April 2025, disagreements emerged over the final account.

LUC Construction commenced seven adjudications challenging different aspects of the valuation. Three adjudicators subsequently found that deductions made by Avanton Capital had been overstated by £710,264.

Avanton then commenced its own adjudication concerning a notified sum of approximately £1.88 million, arguing that LUC had failed to issue a valid payment notice or pay less notice.

The adjudicator ordered LUC to pay.

When enforcement reached the Technology and Construction Court, LUC sought to delay payment, raising concerns about Avanton’s ability to repay and its own financial circumstances.

The court refused the stay, entering summary judgment for £1,603,500.25, plus interest and fees.

Importantly, the court did not conclude that pursuing multiple adjudications was inappropriate.

But the circumstances raise a wider question about commercial decision-making.

Being legally right is not enough to protect your cash flow

Having worked across quantity surveying, project management and construction law, I believe there is a distinction between establishing what a business is legally entitled to recover and determining the most commercially effective route to recovery.

A contractor might have several legitimate claims involving variations, defects or disputed deductions.

Each might justify adjudication.

But pursuing every available claim simultaneously does not automatically represent the strongest strategy.

The issue is whether those proceedings improve the business’s overall position or introduce financial exposure that has not been properly assessed.

For commercial directors managing high-value projects, I believe three questions should guide the decision.

First, what commercial outcome are we trying to achieve? Establishing entitlement, securing payment and achieving final account closure are not necessarily the same objective.

Second, how does each adjudication affect the wider payment position? A favourable valuation decision does not necessarily remove an immediate obligation arising from a separate adjudication.

Third, what happens if enforcement goes against us? Businesses need to understand their funding position before proceedings commence, rather than discovering their financial vulnerability when payment becomes due.

Stop measuring dispute success by the number of decisions you win

I believe construction businesses sometimes focus too heavily on whether they have grounds to adjudicate and insufficiently on whether proceeding at that moment makes commercial sense.

Adjudication is an important mechanism for protecting contractual rights. There are circumstances where multiple proceedings are entirely justified.

But legal entitlement should inform commercial strategy, not replace it.

The Avanton decision concerned enforcement rather than the merits of commencing seven adjudications. Nevertheless, it demonstrates why competing payment obligations and financial exposure deserve consideration from the outset.

A successful dispute strategy should be measured by the commercial position it achieves, not simply the number of favourable decisions obtained.

Seven adjudications on one project. Is that disciplined protection of contractual rights, or evidence that commercial control is being lost?