0370 270 6000

Exhibit a - recoverable

6 September 2013

In the recent case of The Board of Trustee of National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside v AEW Architects and Designers Ltd and PIHL Galliford Try JV (2013) EWHC 2403 TCC, Mr Justice Akenhead gave a landmark ruling regarding the circumstances in which adjudication costs can be recovered. 

The case

The case concerned design and construction defects at the new Museum of Liverpool. In a judgment containing detailed findings of fact regarding breach of contract and negligence, the court ordered that the architect (AEW Architects and Designers Ltd, AEW) and the contractor (PIHL Galliford Try JV, PIHL), pay the claimant over £1.1 million in damages.

The judgment is important because the court allowed the museum to recover from AEW costs the museum had incurred in an earlier adjudication commenced against it by PIHL (see paragraphs 124 to 130) - a head of loss for which parties rarely claim. That adjudication concerned PIHLs liability for design responsibility for certain work at the museum. The adjudicator found for PIHL, granted it declaratory relief and ordered that the museum pay his fee (which it did).

Despite the fact that AEW had not been party to the adjudication proceedings, the court held that the museum was entitled to recover from it the adjudicators fee, along with (in part) the museums own legal and expert fees. Mr Justice Akenhead said that this was a matter of causation and what was reasonably foreseeable. He found that: 1. It was reasonably foreseeable that PIHL would refer the dispute to adjudication. 2. For AEWs breaches of contract and negligence, there would have been no dispute between the museum and PIHL: "Adjudication is a fact of life now in construction contracts… it was within the bounds of reasonable foreseeability that there could be adjudication in circumstances such as arose here. There was a sufficient causative link between the defaults of AEW and this adjudication." The court said that the causative link could only have been broken if the museum had acted unreasonably or its solicitors had negligently advised it that it had an arguable defence in the adjudication - neither of which was the case here.


This case is likely to prompt more parties to seek to recover the costs of previous adjudications - and it seems likely that the court will grant such requests. This pragmatic development is in keeping with the original intention of the Construction Act: one of the purposes of statutory adjudication was to improve cash flow in the industry and the fact that the costs of the procedure are so rarely recoverable is a significant barrier in this regard.

With regard to foreseeability and causation, it is hard to imagine circumstances in which it is not "reasonably foreseeable" that a construction dispute might be referred to adjudication. However, the question of causation is more difficult (what is or is not reasonable in the context of bringing of defending an adjudication?) and it seems likely that the courts will be required to clarify this in the future.

Parties should bear in mind that elements of the judgment remain unclear. For example, is the decision confined to negligence and multi-party contracts? It also remains to be seen whether future judgments consider it relevant that here Mr Justice Akenhead found the merits of the case to be overwhelmingly in the museums favour and was "very surprised" that the case was not settled and went to trial.

Focus on...

Published articles

Sustainability in construction

The climate emergency has reached a point where real and substantial damage is being caused to both the planet and society. There has been a shift from planning and theorising the most effective solutions, to a phase where practical, efficient, and sustainable solutions are required at speed.



Responding to Grenfell – Slow progress is better than none

On 18 May 2022 the government published the Fire Safety Act 2021 factsheet: Information on commencement of sections 1 and 3 of the Fire Safety Act, confirming that sections 1 and 3 of the Fire Safety Act 2021 commenced on 16 May 2022.



80% hours for 100% pay? That’ll do nicely

As has been widely reported this week, some 3,000 UK workers are taking part in a six month trial to assess the viability of a four-day working week without any reduction in their normal pay.


Press releases

Browne Jacobson advises Charterpoint on sale of 73-bed care home site

Browne Jacobson has successfully advised Nottingham based developer Charterpoint on the sale of a 1.2 acre care home development site in Thurnby (Leicestershire) to care home operator Cinnamon.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up