High Court TCC Enforces Adjudicator's £1.9m Award Against Contractor LUC Construction but Grants Stay of Execution Pending Arbitration

Disputes

High Court TCC Enforces Adjudicator's £1.9m Award Against Contractor LUC Construction but Grants Stay of Execution Pending Arbitration

In Avanton Capital CC Limited v LUC Construction Limited [2026] EWHC 2630 (TCC), Mr Justice Constable handed down judgment on 15 October 2026 in the Technology and Construction Court (TCC), part of the Business and Property Division of the High Court of Justice. The case arose from a design and build contract dated 15 November 2023 under which LUC Construction was engaged by Avanton Capital to construct three industrial units at Culvert Court, London. Practical completion was certified on 10 April 2025, after which disputes emerged over the value of the final account. In a significant procedural escalation, LUC commenced seven separate adjudications on 22 May 2026 relating to different aspects of the final account valuation. Avanton responded with its own adjudication on 13 June 2026, claiming LUC had failed to serve a valid payment or pay less notice in respect of a notified sum of £1,877,640.25, making that sum immediately due. Between 24 June and 10 July 2026, LUC obtained three adjudicators' awards finding that Avanton's contracharges were overstated by an aggregate of . The principal adjudication decision of ordered LUC to pay Avanton plus interest and plus VAT in adjudicator's fees. LUC initially resisted enforcement on natural justice grounds, but abandoned that challenge before the hearing. The court granted summary judgment to enforce the award, adjusted by owing to LUC under a separate decision. The substantive dispute remained: LUC argued it was likely to be the net payee once all final account issues were resolved in arbitration it had commenced, and applied for a stay of execution (a pause on enforcement) under . , instructed by , appeared for Avanton. The defendant appeared via direct access counsel.

High Court TCC Enforces Adjudicator's £1.9m Award Against Contractor LUC Construction but Grants Stay of Execution Pending Arbitration | Folio

£710,264

9 July 2026

£1,877,640.25

£11,460

£184,140

CPR 83.7(4)

William Webb KC

Archor LLP

Why this matters

This case illustrates the tension at the heart of construction adjudication: the scheme is designed to deliver "pay now, argue later" interim decisions, but when both parties obtain competing adjudicators' awards and the overall financial picture is genuinely uncertain, enforcement can feel punitive rather than provisional. The volume of parallel adjudications, seven commenced by LUC alone, shows how complex final account disputes in construction contracts can fragment into multiple simultaneous processes. The stay of execution application under CPR 83.7(4) is the defendant's primary tool for preventing enforcement where insolvency or severe financial hardship is a real risk, and the court's treatment of that application will be instructive for practitioners advising contractors facing similar enforcement pressure.

On the Ground

Construction and engineering lawyers, particularly those practising in the TCC, will use this judgment to advise clients on the conditions under which a stay of execution will be granted and how to structure arguments around a counterparty's financial position and the likelihood of being the net payee after arbitration. The case also highlights the adjudication enforcement practice area, which involves moving quickly from an adjudicator's decision to a summary judgment application before the paying party can mount a delay strategy. A trainee on this matter would assist with preparing the chronology of adjudication decisions, compiling the trial bundle of payment notices and contract documents, and researching the legal test for a stay under CPR 83.7(4).

Interview prep

Question you might get

“What is adjudication enforcement and when would a court grant a stay of execution to prevent a contractor being forced to pay an adjudicator's award immediately?”

Full answer

A model answer you can lift into an interview — how to frame this story for a partner.

Sources

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/tcc/2026/2630

My notes

saved

Discussion

Loading…