Construction, Dispute Resolution

Why the adjudicator’s decision is only the beginning

Written by: Samuel Okoronkwo

Published on: April 30, 2026

Many people assume that once an adjudicator delivers their decision, the work is complete. There is a sense of relief that a result has been reached and a belief that the matter is now resolved.

But in practice, the decision is often where a new set of challenges begins.

In high-stakes construction disputes, the losing party is rarely eager to pay. Instead of preparing a bank transfer, they are often preparing a challenge. Adjudication is designed to be a swift and binding “lifeline” to keep projects moving, but that lifeline can be severed if you have not considered how to protect the decision. Without a strategy for what comes next, you may find that your hard-won victory is impossible to enforce.

Why decisions are challenged

An adjudicator’s decision is “binding,” but it is not bulletproof. There are specific grounds that a party will use to resist payment and delay the process.

To ensure your outcome holds up under scrutiny, you must understand these risks:

Jurisdiction: If the adjudicator stepped outside the bounds of the specific dispute they were asked to decide, the entire decision can be rendered void. A challenge to jurisdiction is the most common way to derail enforcement before it truly starts.

Natural Justice: Adjudication lives by strict principles of fairness. Both parties must be given a fair opportunity to put their case forward. If an adjudicator ignores a key piece of evidence or fails to act impartially, the decision is at risk of being set aside.

Procedural Errors: Even a small mistake in the timeline, such as failing to reach a decision within the required 28 days, can provide the losing party with a “loophole” to withhold payment.

The Reality of the "Second Bite"

A common mistake is assuming that if a decision does not sit right, you can simply “run it again”. In construction, that instinct is understandable when significant sums are involved, but the law is clear: a dispute that is the same, or substantially the same, as one already decided cannot be referred again.

I have seen cases where a party with better evidence lost simply because they were unclear in their first referral. They failed to connect technical facts to the contractual breach, and because they could not resubmit the same dispute, that failure became final. This is why your first referral must be prepared as though it is your only opportunity, because, in most cases, it is.

Protecting your position

Securing a decision is a tactical success, but ensuring that decision is enforced is a commercial necessity.

The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) exists to ensure that adjudication remains a “pay now, argue later” system. However, the court will only support a decision that has been reached through a fair and correct process.

Whether you are seeking to enforce a favourable outcome or responding to a decision that you believe is fundamentally flawed, you must move quickly. In construction, time is never on your side when cashflow is at stake.

If you have concerns that a procedural oversight or a jurisdictional challenge has weakened your position, immediate action is required.

Mercantile Barristers can assist in navigating the complexities of the enforcement process to ensure your outcome is both secure and final. Contact a member of our team today to discuss your options and protect your project’s cashflow.

Join our Upcoming Session
To further explore how to navigate the post-decision phase and secure your payment, I invite you to join our next session.

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