What changed in 2025 for Irish Construction Adjudication?
The mechanics of the Construction Contracts Act 2013 (the “Act”) were perhaps best summed up in 2025 by the words of Mr. Justice Garrett Simons, who stated in the September judgment of Albert Connaghton v Timber Frame Projects Ltd t/a Timber Frame Ireland [2025] IEHC 469:
“…. the scheme of the Construction Contracts Act 2013 is to enhance the position of the party executing the contract works by regulating the timing and enforcement of payment claims. This is achieved, first, by stipulating that a construction contract must make provision for the amount of each payment, the payment claim date, and the date upon which payment is due. The Act then regulates the making of, and response to, payment claims. The paying party may seek to resist a payment claim by raising any defence or set-off which would reduce or exclude the liability to make the contractual payment. The paying party should, in the first instance, provide particulars of the asserted defence or set-off in its response to a payment claim notice. Thereafter, the Act puts in place a mandatory dispute resolution mechanism whereby, in the event of a payment dispute between the parties, these matters can be agitated by way of adjudication.”
While this particular judgment ultimately resulted in a refusal to enforce the adjudicator’s decision, the judicial clarity provided around the meaning of a “payment dispute” (a term which is undefined in the Act), will, undoubtedly inform the approach of parties to adjudication in future. As part of our review of 2025, we consider this case in further detail below, together with other key developments.
Final Account Disputes and Referring Party Readiness to Adjudicate
The Ninth Annual Report of the Chairperson of the Construction Contracts Adjudication Panel (the “Report”) outlined some very notable trends during the period 26 July 2024 to 25 July 2025 which will be of interest to all those involved in the construction sector. Although the number of adjudicator appointments made under Section 6(4) of the Act was down slightly on 2023/24, the numbers are up when compared against 2022/23.
The Report shows that the largest share of payment disputes referred to adjudication took the form of final payment disputes. This is consistent with our experience as practitioners. Moreover, the data demonstrates that Referring Parties (the party commencing adjudication proceedings), enjoyed a greater percentage of successful decisions in their favour than in previous years.
Referring Parties are now effectively utilising the adjudication process to secure returns on works they have carried out. In other words, many contractors are incorporating the process into their business model.
The process of commencing an adjudication under the Act was designed to be straightforward. Although not prescriptive in nature, the guidance notes and template forms were prepared with that intention in mind. However, in practice, managing the process correctly so as to avoid future issues of non-compliance or jurisdictional challenge often requires a significant degree of care and diligence.
The fact that, according to the Report, Referring Parties have enjoyed 70% success in all decisions made during the period evidences that claimants are now better prepared in bringing their claims through adjudication. They have typically done their homework in preparing a detailed chronological narrative, collected their evidence and possibly commissioned an expert report. Most importantly, they have given careful consideration to their legal entitlements and made submissions that are grounded in fact, the contract and the law. As simplistic as it sounds, Referring Parties are getting better at telling their side of the story.
These results do not exist in isolation. They indicate that Responding Parties need to be more ready to do battle in the adjudication process where the need arises. Written contractual communications will more often than not remain at the heart of any adjudicator’s decision. The old adage of records, records, records still rings true, but such records are useless if they do not support a Responding Party’s position in adjudication. A full review of the project documentation is often necessary to identify key evidence to support a robust defence.
Unsurprisingly, the lion’s share of adjudication disputes referred under the Act were between subcontractors and main contractors.
Irish High Court Judgments 2025
Section 6(11) of the Act provides that an adjudicator’s decision can, with the leave of the Court, be enforced in the same manner as a judgment or order of the High Court. Below are some examples of how the Courts approached enforcement in 2025.
Such cases should be viewed in the proper context. There have only been two occasions in 2025 where an adjudicator’s decision has proceeded to enforcement through the Irish Courts. This is against a backdrop of 37 adjudication decisions.
Tenderbids Ltd t/a Bastion-v-Electrical Waste Management Limited [2025] IEHC 139
Up until this year, the Irish Courts were reluctant to interfere in the decisions of adjudicators. However, this case was the first example of an enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision being refused by the Irish Courts since the Act came into being. It demonstrates how a technical error can prove critical to the outcome.
Under Section 10(1) of the Act, the parties to a construction contract may agree on the manner by which notices shall be served and delivered. In that context, the contract between Tenderbids and EWM essentially specified that (save for payment claim notices under Section 4) all notices under the Act were to be delivered by registered post.
Tenderbids submitted its Notice of Intention to Refer a Payment Dispute by way of e-mail, contrary to the terms of the construction contract. However, an adjudicator’s decision was ultimately awarded in Tenderbids favour and Tenderbids proceeded to enforce its decision.
During the proceedings, the principle was reiterated that a party which contends that a statutory provision does not have effect must bear the onus in proving why that is to be the case. EWM effectively argued that the clear statutory intent was to “preserve parties’ contractual autonomy in commercial contracts...”
Tenderbids’ main argument was that “the common and established form of communication practice” between the parties had been by way of e-mail. That said, they made it clear that they were not seeking to argue that EWM had waived its rights in respect of delivery of notices. Tenderbids further argued that EWM should have raised early jurisdictional objections, which it did not do until the “eleventh hour” and engaged with the process to a greater extent.
Ultimately, the Court concluded that Notice of Intention to Refer was not delivered in the manner which had been agreed by the parties under the express terms of the construction contract. The legal consequence of this failure was that the dispute was never validly referred, and, accordingly, the adjudicator award was a “nullity”.
Notably, a new Originating Notice of Motion was issued in July 2025 with judgment listed for early January 2026. Only time will tell the significance of this action and it will certainly be interesting to follow the outcome in due course.
Albert Connaghton v Timber Frame Projects Ltd t/a Timber Frame Ireland [2025] IEHC 469:
This matter concerned a construction contract for the design, supply and erection of a timber frame structure for an existing dwelling house. The employer purported to terminate the contract on the basis of alleged repudiatory breach.
The dispute itself revolved around whether there was a repudiatory breach arising from failure by the contractor to complete works within the agreed timeframe. The employer argued that it was entitled to recover the purchase price under the contract and compensation for consequential loss, amongst other things.
The Court however ruled that the “crucial point” was that the dispute referred did not relate to a “payment provided for under the construction contract”. The Court held that the “combination of reliefs” that they had sought related to “monetary compensation at common law (and, possibly, at equity if and insofar the claim for the return of the monies paid had been framed in restitution.”
Most importantly, the Court very clearly ruled that this was “not a dispute of a type amendable to statutory adjudication.”
In clarifying the ruling, Mr Justice Simons explained that a payment dispute can only be referred to adjudication where such payment is provided for under the construction contract. In other words, the provision must be express in nature. Following that line of reasoning, termination for repudiatory breach was in itself not capable of forming the subject matter of a payment dispute under the Act. Only contractual rights to terminate may be considered in this context.
There were ancillary points raised to challenge the enforcement application which the contractor was not successful on. These included arguments that the process did not comply with fair procedures and that the subject matter of the underlying contract was illegal insofar as it was alleged the proposed construction would have involved a breach of planning permission.
For the time being, employers and contractors will certainly be well advised to review their contracts with downstream parties to ensure that express provisions are included setting out that the executing party would be obliged to pay a particular sum in the event of a breach and termination of a construction contract. Indeed, as the Court observed, standard form contracts often make provision for this precise outcome. That said, the position is not universal across the standard forms.
This judgment represents perhaps one of the most thorough analyses of the boundaries and limits of the Act provided to date. In summary, it currently seems if you want to be able to claim an entitlement in adjudication pursuant to the Act, you need to be careful that any supporting arguments are rooted in the express provisions of your construction contract. This was as the Court observed at paragraph 20 of the judgment an “essential prerequisite to a valid referral to statutory adjudication.”
It should be cautioned that an appeal was issued on 3 December 2025.
The team at Caldwell Ritchie Berry has significant experience of representing parties in adjudication, including in enforcement proceedings. Should you require assistance in relation to payment notices or an evolving dispute, do not hesitate to contact one of our team.