High Court success for the Construction & Engineering Team in the enforcement of a residential defect adjudication

In recent Technology & Construction Court proceedings, Jan Rzedzian, Partner and Head of the Construction & Engineering Team and Adam Chaffer, Associate represented a homeowner seeking to recover monies for defects in construction works arising from the conversion of the homeowner’s garage into an extension of the family dog business.

The case of Singh -v- City Building and Joinery Limited [2025] (unreported, HT-2025-NCL-000001 and HT-2025-NCL-000003) concerned construction works undertaken by a building company to a garage. The works involved converting the garage from domestic use into a grooming parlour. In an adjudication concerning defects, the builder made a jurisdictional challenge on the basis that the residential exemption of section 106 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 meant that the adjudicator did not have jurisdiction. Those challenges failed and the adjudicator proceeded to find in favour of the homeowner.

In enforcement proceedings before the Technology & Construction Court sitting at the Business & Property Court at Newcastle, the builder sought to injunct the homeowner to prevent the enforcement of adjudication decision. The injunction was refused. Turning to the enforcement, the Court applying the established authorities which culminated in the decision of Westfields Construction Limited v Clive Lewis [2013] EWHC 376 found for the homeowner and grant enforcement. On the question of the costs, the Court proceeded to award indemnity costs for the homeowner again applying the traditional approach to costs in enforcement proceedings.

Adam Chaffer said, “adjudication remains one of the most effective methods of resolving construction disputes in a timely manner. The residential challenge exemption remains a cautious hangover from the introduction of a new form of dispute resolution but the authorities are clear that there are occasions when the exemption clearly does not apply and a conversion for the purpose of commercial use is plainly one of those reasons.”

On the injunction element of the proceedings, Jan Rzedzian added, “it is rare – for good reason for injunctive relief would undermine a referring party’s right to enforce an adjudicator’s decision. As a matter of policy, the injunction was bound to fail.”

If you require assistance in preparing or responding to an adjudication, please contact Jan Rzedzian or Adam Chaffer to discuss matter further.