In Beck Interiors v Eros [2024] EWHC 2084, Beck launched 2 adjudications within 10 days. Eros replied with a series of 4 adjudications over a subsequent 15 day period. Beck then applied for an order that all 4 be withdrawn. They argued that they did not have time to respond properly to all these different proceedings, which were therefore unreasonable, oppressive and contrary to natural justice.

The TCC (Jefford J) refused the application, saying that although the Court did have jurisdiction to interfere in adjudications in very extreme circumstances (Dorchester Hotel v Vivid Interiors), the parties to a contract for construction operations have statutory right of to refer any dispute to adjudication at any time (s. 108).

It is up to adjudicators to run their adjudications with procedural fairness, and if this is not done, then the parties have the right to challenge the enforcement of the decision on grounds of material breach of natural justice. Thus the commencement of multiple, concurrent adjudications by one of the parties is not necessarily unreasonable or oppressive. It may simply be a by-product of the right to “adjudicate at any time”; or a by-product of the rule in the Statutory Scheme that only one dispute may be referred to an adjudication.

Multiple adjudications seem to be increasingly common, but generally the Courts will not interfere.