Construction, Dispute Resolution

The Enforcement Gap: Bridging the space between decision and payment

Written by: Samuel Okoronkwo

Published on: May 19, 2026

In the UK construction sector, the delivery of an adjudicator’s decision is frequently misinterpreted as the conclusion of a dispute.

For the developer or contractor who has endured the rigours of a 28-day referral, the arrival of the decision feels like a definitive end.

However, my experience with projects exceeding £1 million dictates that the decision is rarely the final act. It is, instead, the beginning of a tactical phase where the objective shifts from proving a claim to securing a commercial result.

This transition period is what I define as the “Enforcement Gap.”

It is the space between a legal finding and a tangible financial recovery.

To navigate this gap effectively, you must move beyond the technical merits of the original dispute and focus on the realities of the Technology and Construction Court (TCC).

The strategic shift: from merits to mandates

During the adjudication itself, your focus is internal: contracts, schedules, and evidence. Once the decision is signed, you must turn your focus external. You are no longer arguing about why you are right; you are managing the reality of whether your opponent will comply.

In many instances, the losing party views the adjudicator’s decision not as a mandate to pay, but as a document to be stress-tested. They are not looking for the truth of the build; they are looking for a procedural “exit route.”

Bridging the gap through technical precision

To bridge the Enforcement Gap, we must address the specific legal mechanisms that dictate whether an outcome will hold.

Enforceability and jurisdiction risks

The TCC operates on a “pay now, argue later” philosophy, but this is not an absolute rule. The court will refuse to enforce a decision if there has been a fundamental departure from the rules of natural justice or if the adjudicator lacked the jurisdiction to act.

The role of summary judgment

When a party refuses to pay, the primary remedy is an application for summary judgment in the TCC. This is a fast-track process designed to provide a swift conclusion. However, the efficiency of the court is dependent on your precision. Any ambiguity provides the defendant with the one thing they desire most: more time.

Moving beyond the decision

Perhaps the most overlooked aspect of the post-decision phase is its role in settlement. An enforceable adjudicator’s decision carries significant psychological and financial weight. Often, the most efficient way to close the Enforcement Gap is by using the looming threat of TCC enforcement to negotiate a final, comprehensive resolution of all outstanding project issues.

Finality and resolution

The goal of any dispute resolution process is to allow you to return to what you do best: building. A dispute that lingers in the Enforcement Gap is a drain on management time, commercial focus, and project margins.

Following my previous sessions on adjudication strategy, I am hosting a fourth instalment focused specifically on this transition. I will share the key factors that determine enforceability and how I assist clients with fast-track applications to ensure a decision results in a resolution.

I would be happy to discuss this further if it applies to your project.

Construction Series Part 4: The Adjudicator’s Decision

Securing Finality and Payment through Effective Enforcement in the TCC
Wednesday, 20 May 2026 | 7 PM UK

Register for the Webinar Here