Sue Ryan
Partner
Article
Adjudication is a popular and widely used means of resolving disputes in the UK. The right of parties to construction contracts to refer disputes arising "under the contract" to adjudication, as mandated by section 108 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA), is well established.
But what is meant by the term "under" a contract? Is this limited to claims for breach of the contract in question? Or does it also encompass wider claims arising in connection with a contract, such as statutory claims under the Defective Premises Act 1972 (DPA)?
These questions have recently been determined by the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) in BDW Trading Ltd v Ardmore Construction Ltd 2024.
This is the first time that the TCC has had to determine the ability of a party to bring a claim under the DPA in adjudication. In light of the extension of the limitation period under the DPA from six to 30 years (as well as the widening of its scope) brought about by the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA), the decision will have wider ramifications for how parties pursue historic fire and building safety claims.
BDW's claim had two alternate legal bases:
For breach of contract claims, the limitation period is either six years (for simple contracts) or 12 years (for deeds) from the date on which the cause of action accrued. Once the limitation period has expired, a defendant will have a complete defence to the claim. Ardmore would therefore ordinarily have had a complete limitation defence to BDW's breach of contract claim, brought some 20 years after completion of the works.
However, BDW argued it was "in time" for limitation purposes due to deliberate concealment by Ardmore of the alleged breaches, including the failure to install fire barriers, meaning that an exception under the Limitation Act 1980 applied.
Before enactment of the BSA, the limitation period in which a potential claimant could bring a claim under section 1 of the DPA was six years from completion of a dwelling.
However, section 135 of the BSA – which came into force on 28 June 2022 – inserted a new section into the Limitation Act 1980 which "had the effect, amongst other things, of increasing retrospectively the limitation period for a claim under section 1(1) of the DPA 1972 from six years to 30 years".
Until section 135 came into force, Ardmore therefore also had a complete limitation defence against claims by BDW under the DPA – but from June 2022, BDW's claims were no longer time-barred due to the extended limitation period provided by the BSA. We provide more detail on DPA claims in our earlier insight.
The contract expressly stated that disputes arising "under the contract" could be referred to adjudication, mirroring the wording of section 108 HGCRA.
The parties disagreed on the meaning of the words "under the contract":
In Fiona Trust, the (then) House of Lords had considered the meaning of the phrases "arising under" and "arising out of" in an arbitration clause and held that there was no difference in substance between the two phrases. The starting point is a "strong presumption" that commercial parties intend all disputes to be determined in a single forum – and if they wished to exclude a particular type of claim from the scope of an arbitration agreement, they would need to do so expressly.
Mrs Justice Joanna Smith DBE agreed with BDW that the adjudicator had jurisdiction over its claims including the DPA claim. On an analysis of the authorities, she held that:
She further found that there was "no significance in the differing wording in the arbitration and adjudication provisions of this Building Contract". This did not "indicate a clear intention that the jurisdiction of the adjudicator would be narrower than that of the arbitrator (as opposed to, say, indicating merely that the draftsman was following the wording of section 108 HGCRA 1996 for the purposes of the adjudication provision)".
Although only a summary judgment application, this decision is significant. The parties' contract in this case was based on an older JCT form, but the wording of the adjudication clause is substantially the same as in the JCT 2016 and 2024 – and as noted above, is based on section 108 of the HGCRA.
The decision confirms that the reference to disputes "under the contract" in such clauses will include statutory claims such as those under the DPA.
It provides clarity to parties wishing to revive, or potentially facing, previously time-barred claims under the DPA, confirming that these claims can be referred to adjudication. Claimants will welcome the confirmation that adjudication may be used to pursue fire safety defect claims, without concerns about wasted time and cost due to potential jurisdictional challenges.
The Supreme Court has recently heard the appeal in URS v BDW (we previously reported on the Court of Appeal decision in our earlier insight). The Supreme Court decision, expected in Spring 2025, will bring the Defective Premises Act – legislation that until the BSA, was rarely used – further into the spotlight.
If you have any questions about this article or fire safety claims, including under the DPA, please contact Sue Ryan or Jessica Tresham.
NOT LEGAL ADVICE. Information made available on this website in any form is for information purposes only. It is not, and should not be taken as, legal advice. You should not rely on, or take or fail to take any action based upon this information. Never disregard professional legal advice or delay in seeking legal advice because of something you have read on this website. Gowling WLG professionals will be pleased to discuss resolutions to specific legal concerns you may have.