Court rejects attempt to raise new adjudication jurisdiction arguments at enforcement stage in the recent case of Murnells London Ltd v Beale [2025] EWHC 2651 (TCC).
The Technology and Construction Court has confirmed that parties cannot expand or introduce new jurisdictional objections at the enforcement stage of an adjudication. In Murnells London Ltd v Beale, the Court held that objections must be raised appropriately and clearly during the adjudication itself. Broad, catch all reservations were not sufficient, and the defendant was held to have waived several arguments that were only advanced once enforcement proceedings had begun.
The judgment reinforces the Construction Act’s “pay now, argue later” philosophy and highlights the importance of identifying the correct contracting entity before commencing formal dispute procedures.
Background
The dispute arose out of residential renovation works instructed by the defendant, Mr Beale, initially under a letter of intent which was signed “for and on behalf of Murnells Limited” (ML). No formal contract was subsequently executed, though various draft versions were circulated naming Murnells London Ltd (the Claimant) as the contractor.
Following delays and disputes on the project, the defendant terminated the contract and the Claimant commenced adjudication. The adjudicator awarded the Claimant £365,000, and the Claimant sought summary judgment to enforce that decision.
The defendant resisted enforcement on two principal jurisdictional grounds:
- Wrong contracting entity – arguing that the adjudication had been commenced by the Claimant, even though ML was allegedly the true contracting party; and
- Lack of crystallisation – asserting that the extension of time claim had not properly crystallised before the adjudication started.
Although the defendant had made general reservations of jurisdiction during the adjudication, he then sought to introduce more detailed objections for the first time at the enforcement stage.
General reservations of rights are not enough
The Court emphasised that jurisdictional objections must be raised during the adjudication in a way that is appropriate and clear.
While the case law recognises that a general reservation may in some circumstances preserve a party’s rights, this will not apply where a party knew, or ought to have known, of specific objections but failed to identify them at the time.
Here, the defendant had only offered broad, catch‑all reservations. The Court held that he had waived the right to rely on the more detailed arguments he attempted to advance at enforcement.
The judgment highlights the Court’s reluctance to undermine the statutory scheme by permitting parties to hold back jurisdictional points to deploy later. Any resulting “rough justice” forms part of the intended operation of the adjudication regime.
The contracting entity argument
Even if the defendant had preserved the argument, the Court considered it highly unlikely to succeed.
A key piece of evidence was that the defendant’s own quantity surveyor had prepared the draft contracts naming Murnells London Ltd as the contractor. This was never queried by either party before the drafts were executed by the parties. On that basis, the Court accepted the adjudicator’s conclusion that the Claimant was the correct contracting entity.
The dispute had crystallised
The defendant also argued that no dispute had crystallised because the extension of time claim referred to in the adjudication differed from earlier correspondence.
The Court reaffirmed the principle from St Austell Printing Co Ltd v Dawnus Construction Holdings Ltd [2015] EWHC 96 (TCC) that a dispute will crystallise once a claim has been advanced and not accepted within a reasonable period. A party cannot avoid crystallisation by demanding ever increasing levels of detail.
On the facts, the Claimant’s position had been made clear well before the notice of adjudication, and the defendant’s failure to respond substantively meant that the dispute had crystallised.
Outcome
The Court granted summary judgment, enforcing the adjudicator’s decision in full.
Key takeaways
- Raise jurisdictional objections promptly and precisely
General reservations of rights are rarely effective. Any jurisdictional issue whether relating to the adjudicator’s appointment, the scope of the dispute, or the contracting party must be raised expressly and at the earliest opportunity.
- Ensure clarity on the contracting entity
Where groups of companies operate under similar names, parties should ensure the correct entity is identified consistently across letters of intent, draft contracts, payment notices and adjudication documents.
- Crystallisation does not require exhaustive detail
A dispute will ordinarily crystallise once a claim has been made and not addressed within a reasonable time. Attempts to delay crystallisation by demanding more information are unlikely to succeed.
- Enforcement hearings are not the place for new arguments
The TCC maintains a robust approach to the enforcement of adjudicators’ decisions. Parties cannot save jurisdictional points for later or attempt to reopen matters that should have been addressed during the adjudication.