Natural Justice And Awareness Of Adjudication Proceedings

It is now well recognised that in the absence of material breaches of natural justice and/or lack of jurisdiction, the Courts will enforce an Adjudicator's decision whether it is right or wrong.

A relatively novel angle on the breach of natural justice argument arose in the case of Lobo -v- Corich & Anor [2017] EWHC 1438 (TCC). The case concerned an Adjudication commenced against the Defendant builder Mr Corich. The Claimant, Mr Lobo, had terminated the Defendant's employment due to breach of contract and claimed monies from him for the cost of completion/rectification. The contract was a JCT Intermediate Building Contract Revision 2 2009, signed by the parties. Mr Corich did not pay. So Mr Lobo referred the dispute to Adjudication.

Adjudication proceedings

Mr Corich took no part in the adjudication. Perhaps not surprisingly the Adjudicator found in Mr Lobo's favour. Again the Defendant did not pay. So the Claimant issued Court proceedings to enforce the Adjudicator's decision in the usual way.

The court enforced the decision in February 2017, which was for circa £630,000, together with indemnity costs of circa £30,000. Again Mr Corich played no role in those proceedings, and did not pay. So due to non-payment Mr Lobo obtained an interim charging Order over a London property owned by the Defendant.

Defendant issues court proceedings to set aside the court decision

Up to this point the Defendant, Mr Corich, had taken no part in either the Adjudication or the subsequent court proceedings. Indeed he did not come on the scene until March 2017 when he instructed solicitors. They issued court proceedings seeking to set aside the Adjudicator's decision, and the orders made against him, on the basis that the Adjudicator's decision had been reached in breach of the principles of natural justice and was also procedurally unfound and unfair, in that the adjudication proceeded in his absence and without him ever having been made aware of any aspect of it. As a result he had not been able to put in a defence.

Use of multiple addresses by the defendant

The court therefore had to determine whether Mr Corich was aware of the Adjudication proceedings and/or the subsequent enforcement/charging order proceedings. He was described as living a relatively peripatetic lifestyle, and gave evidence to the court about where he lived from time to time, but this was far from clear, and was evasive as to exactly where he was living between 2014 and 2017. His oral...