UK: Recovery Of Costs In Adjudication

Last Updated: 2 January 2014
Article by Jessica Stephens

The issue of costs has troubled adjudicators and the courts since the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 was introduced. This article seeks to clarify the statutory position in the light of the case law.

Costs of Adjudication

The HGCRA 1996 was silent as to the adjudicator's power to make orders as to the payment of either side's costs of the adjudication. The Scheme for Construction Contracts gave the adjudicator power to determine which of the parties was liable for his fees or expenses but did not expressly empower the adjudicator to order one party to pay some or all of the other party's costs.

Parties could expressly agree contractually or during the adjudication itself to the adjudicator determining liability for a party's costs. The latter approach conferred ad hoc jurisdiction on the adjudicator: see, for example, Northern Developments (Cumbria) Ltd v J & J Nichol [2000] BLR 158.

Some standard form clauses preserved the statutory position that an adjudicator has no power to determine liability for a party's legal/expert costs: eg CIC Model Adjudication Procedure. Others such as RIBA Standard Conditions empowered adjudicators to direct the payment of legal costs and expenses as part of their decisions. There was no difficulty with clauses such as these.

In the absence of jurisdiction, any adjudicator's decision requiring a party to pay the costs of another would be unenforceable, although it is likely that this part of the decision would be severable from the remainder: see Cantillon Ltd v Urvasco Ltd [2008] BLR 437 at [78].

Costs where referral withdrawn

What about liability for a responding party's wasted costs in the event of a referring party withdrawing a claim? Ordinarily, where the adjudicator has no power in respect of party/party costs, he cannot make an order for costs against the party who discontinues.

However, where the adjudicator was permitted to award legal costs against one party, discontinuance is likely to lead to the discontinuing party paying the costs of the other. The Court of Appeal's decision in John Roberts Architects v Parkcare Homes (No 2) [2005] EWHC 1637 (TCC) strongly supports that approach.

'Tolent' Clauses

As well as clauses that enabled costs allocation as part of a decision, clauses were devised that dictated the costs position following an adjudication. The most potent were clauses that required the referring party to pay the responding party's costs regardless of outcome.

This was initially permissible. In Bridgeway Construction v Tolent Construction [2000] CILL 1662, the contract included a clause that required the party serving the notice of adjudication to bear all the costs and expenses of the adjudication incurred by both parties, including, but not limited to, legal costs and expert fees.

HHJ McKay upheld this clause (which became known as a Tolent clause) finding that the term was not contrary to the Act and could not be unfair because (notwithstanding its practical implications) it applied equally to both parties. In a later decision, Edwards-Stuart J came down against such clauses, finding in Yuanda (UK) v WW Gear [2010] EWHC 720 (TCC) that if the effect of the clause was to discourage a party from exercising its statutory right to refer disputes to adjudication, it may well be contrary to the Act and therefore not compliant or enforceable.

The clause in Yuanda was similar to that in Tolent. There can be other permutations that reflected the level of success which would not offend against the Act since they applied equally and were designed to reduce massively inflated claims.

The Amended Act

The amendments introduced by the snappily titled Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 ('LDEDCA') include a new section 108A, which is in the following terms:

"1 This section applies in relation to any contractual provision made between the parties to a construction contract that concerns the allocation as between those parties of costs relating to the adjudication of a dispute arising under a construction contract."

"2 The contractual provision referred to in subsection (1) is ineffective unless – (a) it is made in writing, is contained in the construction contract and confers power on the adjudicator to allocate his fees and expenses as between the parties,


(b) it is made in writing after the giving of notice of intention to refer the dispute to adjudication."

When the legislation was proposed, its stated purpose was that 'save for a particular type of pre-dispute agreement regarding costs (namely 'a clause in the parties' construction contract to the effect that an adjudicator will be able to allocate his own costs as part of his decision') the effect of the 'broad and simple prohibition' contained in the new section 108A was to outlaw any other contractual provision concerning the allocation of the costs of an adjudication'.

Does this prohibit clauses conferring upon an adjudicator power to determine party/party costs? This would appear to be the intent. There is no reason why it should: such clauses do not 'allocate' costs. If the prohibition was aimed at Tolent (or similar type) clauses, this result had already been achieved by Yuanda.

One reading of section 108A might be that a costs allocation clause (or, if of broader effect, a clause empowering an adjudicator to determine liability for costs) is effective provided that it is made in writing, is contained in the construction contract and confers power on the adjudicator to allocate his fees and expenses

There is a clear distinction between ss (1), which refers to "the allocation between those parties of costs relating to an adjudication", and ss (2), which refers to (and only to) an adjudicator's fees and expenses. There may be some fertile ground for argument in relation to the precise scope of the prohibition in relation to clauses dealing with the allocation of party/party costs.

In the absence of any authority, it remains arguable that a clause may empower an adjudicator to determine party/party costs; it may also be possible to prescribe some degree of pre-allocation in the event of a claim not succeeding entirely, providing that the clause complies with section 108A, applies equally to both parties and does not detract from a party's right to adjudicate.

However, if section 108A does constitute an effective prohibition against all such clauses, any part of an adjudicator's decision in respect of party/party costs will be unenforceable (albeit potentially severable from the substantive decision).

Recovery of Adjudication Costs in Subsequent Proceedings

Generally, costs incurred in adjudications are not recoverable as damages in subsequent proceedings. In Total M&E Services v ABB Building Technologies [2002], the successful adjudicating party enforced the decision, adding a claim for damages for its adjudication costs, arguing that they were the foreseeable consequence of the failure to pay. HHJ Wilcox considered that that was misconceived. The parties contracted with the right to adjudicate without liability for costs. It followed that such costs were not recoverable.

More recently, in National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside v AEW and PiHL Galliford Try, the employer sought damages from the architect and contractor, including its costs of an earlier adjudication between it and the contractor concerning the contractor's liability for defective design. The adjudicator found for the contractor and ordered the employer to pay his fee. The employer sought damages in respect of the adjudicator's fees and its own costs.

Akenhead J considered these heads of damage by reference to an analysis on the basis of foreseeability and causation to link the architect's defective design with the claimed heads of loss.

It was held that the adjudication itself was the reasonably foreseeable result of the architect's negligence: but for the inadequate design, the works would have been completed without issue, any suspension and/or further instruction to the contractor. Causation was hotly contested by the architect, who said that the employer fought the adjudication knowing that even if it was successful it would not recover its costs, and that the architect should not therefore be liable for them as damages.

This was rejected. Akenhead J found that there was a "sufficient causative link between the defaults of the architect and the adjudication" and that "the causative link would only be broken if the museum had acted unreasonably or if its solicitors had acted negligently in advising the museum that it had an arguable defence in the adjudication".

Damages were recovered in respect of the adjudicator's fees and legal costs and expert fees incurred by the employer in the adjudication. In th

It is difficult to see that this would necessarily have broader application. There is no good reason why it should apply where the same dispute as was adjudicated is finally resolved between the same parties in arbitration or litigation.

Another Route to Costs Recovery?

The Late Payment of Commercial Debts Regulations 2013 came into force in early 2013 and amended the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 (the Late Payment Act). They added the following to the compensation already provided for by section 5A(2A) of the Late Payment Act:

"If the reasonable costs of the supplier in recovering the debt are not met by the fixed sum, the supplier shall also be entitled to a sum equivalent to the difference between the fixed sum and those costs".

The Regulations implement a Directive that states that the recoverable expenses should include the costs of instructing a lawyer. Therefore, in so far as these Regulations apply in adjudicated claims, they may present a route for recovering legal costs.

At the outset, any such right is entirely onesided; it applies only to claims going up the contractual chain rather than down.

The guidance to the Directive also states that "Compensation for the recovery of costs should be determined without prejudice to national provisions according to which a national court may award compensation to the creditor".

This may mean that the Regulations were not intended to oust the Court's jurisdiction to determine costs, but what about the conflict between adjudication where the position is either silent (and there is no power to order costs) or the position is dealt with by a clause that purports to allocate costs?

How – if at all – do the competing regimes fit together?

It is possible to contract out of the Late Payment provision (which operates by implying terms), providing that UCTA 'reasonableness' principles are met. If the parties agree expressly to contract out of section 5A(2A) without upsetting the UCTA principles, 'compensation' for late payment would not include an uplift to cover that party's reasonable costs and the parties would be left with whatever their contract provided in respect of the costs of adjudication.

However, if the proper interpretation and effect of section 108A is that provisions that preallocate party/party costs are prohibited, it is arguable that any such clause could not be relied upon to contract out of section 5A(2A). If section 108A extends to provisions that permit the adjudicator to allocate costs, then any attempt to contract out will be of doubtful efficacy.

How is the clash between the provisions of the Act and the provisions of the Regulations to be resolved?

Bennion on Statutory Interpretation considers that "delegated legislation cannot override any Act". If the Late Payment Act is applicable to claims brought in adjudication, they appear to be inconsistent with section 108A's prohibition on cost allocation clauses, and are potentially ultra vires or at least inapplicable to the extent of the inconsistency.

Whether ultra vires or not, what if an adjudicator decides that the referring party can rely upon section 5A(2A) and recover its costs? Is that a jurisdictional issue or just an example of an adjudicator reaching the wrong conclusion on the law?

It is reasonably arguable that an adjudicator's reliance upon ultra vires (or inapplicable) delegated legislation to award costs when legislation prohibits such clauses is a jurisdictional issue rather than an error of fact or law that does not affect the validity of the decision.

Whether that renders the entire decision unenforceable or only the part that deals with costs is debatable: if the decision on costs is separate from the substantive decision, it ought to be severable.

What is clear is that it is by no means entirely clear. As the amounts spent on costs in adjudications can be significant, and many consultants advertise their services on the basis that costs (i.e. their fees) may be recoverable, it is only a matter of time before this issue comes before the courts for resolution. requiring a party to pay the costs of another would be severable from the remainder...

The articles and papers published by Keating Chambers are for the purpose of raising general awareness of issues and stimulating discussion. The contents must not be relied upon or applied in any given situation. There is no substitute for taking appropriate professional advice.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.