SCCSI - Knowledge Check
VMA Services Limited v Project One London Limited [2025] EWHC 1815 (TCC)
This is a module from the Society of Construction Claims Specialists International's programmes.
https://sccsinternational.org
The VMA Services Limited v Project One London Limited case represents a significant TCC decision that clarifies crucial principles regarding adjudication jurisdiction, enforcement of "smash and grab" claims, and the recovery of notified sums by responding parties. The judgment, delivered on 18 July 2025 by Adrian Williamson KC, establishes important precedent regarding the circumstances in which an adjudicator may order payment to a responding party in construction adjudication proceedings.
Case Background: VMA Services Limited sought summary judgment to enforce an adjudication decision dated 10 February 2025. The adjudicator had found that Project One London Limited's True Value Adjudication could not proceed because POL had failed to pay a notified sum of £106,434.88, and awarded this sum to VMA as the responding party. The central question was whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction to make such a monetary award in favour of a respondent.
Key Legal Points: The judgment reinforces the principle of subjugation established in construction payment legislation - that true value adjudications are subjugated to immediate payment obligations under section 111 of the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. The court distinguished this case from the general Bresco principle that responding parties cannot obtain monetary awards, finding that where an adjudicator determines a particular sum is immediately due to a respondent, different considerations apply. The decision emphasises the policy objective of improving cash flow in the construction industry.
Case Background: VMA Services Limited sought summary judgment to enforce an adjudication decision dated 10 February 2025. The adjudicator had found that Project One London Limited's True Value Adjudication could not proceed because POL had failed to pay a notified sum of £106,434.88, and awarded this sum to VMA as the responding party. The central question was whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction to make such a monetary award in favour of a respondent.
Key Legal Points: The judgment reinforces the principle of subjugation established in construction payment legislation - that true value adjudications are subjugated to immediate payment obligations under section 111 of the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. The court distinguished this case from the general Bresco principle that responding parties cannot obtain monetary awards, finding that where an adjudicator determines a particular sum is immediately due to a respondent, different considerations apply. The decision emphasises the policy objective of improving cash flow in the construction industry.
This knowledge check covers:
- Adjudication jurisdiction and enforcement procedures
- The principle of subjugation in construction payment law
- "Smash and grab" claims and notified sum obligations
- Responding party rights in adjudication proceedings
- The Bresco principle and its limitations
- Summary judgment enforcement of adjudication decisions
- Payment Notice and Pay Less Notice requirements
- True Value Adjudication procedures and restrictions
Choose your knowledge check mode:
Apply To Become A CCCS/CCDA/CCCA