Westgreen Construction Limited v Irina Kiryukhina: TCC enforces £650,000 adjudication decision over advance payments

The Technology and Construction Court has granted summary judgement enforcing an adjudicator's decision requiring a homeowner to pay a contractor £733,062.40, rejecting arguments that the adjudicator exceeded his jurisdiction or breached the rules of natural justice.

In Westgreen Construction Limited v Irina Kiryukhina [2026] EWHC 2189 (TCC), Mrs Justice O'Farrell enforced the decision of adjudicator Donald Pugh dated 7 May 2026, concerning a dispute over a £9.99 million contract for construction and refurbishment works to a residential property in St John's Wood, executed under a JCT Standard Building Contract in June 2024.

The contract provided for two advance payments totalling £650,000, to be reimbursed to the employer only once specified conditions were met, principally agreement and payment of the final account. From Interim Certificate 23 onwards, the Contract Administrator ceased including the advance payments within the gross valuation, having earlier sought unsuccessfully to persuade the contractor to agree a variation allowing earlier clawback. By Interim Certificate 25, both advance payments had been omitted entirely, effectively reclaiming the full £650,000 before any of the contractual conditions for reimbursement had arisen.

Westgreen referred the dispute to adjudication, and the adjudicator found in its favour, holding that the parties had, through their conduct across earlier certificates, treated the advance payments as forming part of the certification mechanism under clause 4.14, and that reimbursement remained subject to the specific conditions in clause 4.7. He ordered payment of £733,062.40, together with interest and fees.

Kiryukhina resisted enforcement on two grounds. First, that the adjudicator acted outside his jurisdiction by determining matters, including the parties' course of dealing on earlier certificates and an alleged breach of clause 4.7, that had not been referred to him. Second, that there were breaches of natural justice in that she was not given adequate opportunity to address the question of contractual breach or a further point said to have been raised for the first time in Westgreen's Reply.

Mrs Justice O'Farrell, applying the established principles from Carillion v Devonport Royal Dockyard and subsequent authorities emphasising the courts' reluctance to interfere with adjudicators' decisions save in plain cases, dismissed both grounds. She held that the essential dispute referred was whether the advance payments had been wrongly excluded from Interim Certificate 25, and that it was open to the defendant to raise, and the adjudicator to consider, any argument or evidence bearing on that question, including the parties' historical treatment of the payments. Reliance on earlier certificates had been foreshadowed in the original Referral and did not constitute a new case.

While accepting that the adjudicator went somewhat further than strictly necessary in making a finding on breach of clause 4.7, the judge noted that both parties had been invited to address the point, no damages were claimed or awarded in respect of it, and it did not form part of the operative relief. No material breach of natural justice arose.

Kiryukhina's application for a stay of execution under CPR 83.7 also failed. There was no suggestion of insolvency or risk of dissipation, and her argument that reimbursement of the advance payments was imminent was rejected, since none of the contractual conditions triggering repayment, including agreement of the final account, had yet been satisfied. The judgement was accordingly enforced in full, with costs awarded to the claimant on the indemnity basis.