"The Timber Frame case": High Court fells misconceptions around disputes that can be adjudicated upon

The Construction Contracts Act 2013 (the CCA 2013) gives parties to a construction contract a statutory right to refer a dispute relating to payment to adjudication. However, since the commencement of the CCA 2013 in July 2016, a lack of clarity has existed as to what constitutes a dispute relating to payment.  

This lack of clarity has been addressed by the decision of Simons J of the High Court in Albert Connaughton v Timber Frame Projects Ltd t/a Timber Frame Ireland [2025] IEHC 469.  The judgment will have consequences for employers, main contractors and subcontractors both in respect of:

• the disputes that they may considering referring to adjudication, and
• the negotiation of certain contractual terms

The Background

The parties had entered into a bespoke construction contract for the design, supply and erection of a timber frame structure. The contract was described as “sparse” compared to the detailed terms found in standard form contracts (such as the RIAI, NEC or JCT forms). Notably, it made no provision for termination payments.

The Employer purported to terminate the contract, alleging repudiatory breach and seeking common law damages after the Contractor allegedly failed to erect a timber frame house by the completion deadline. The Employer was successful at adjudication and obtained a monetary award in its favour for recovery of the purchase price paid as well as for its consequential losses. It then sought to enforce this award in the High Court.  

The Contractor sought to resist the enforcement application on three grounds:

1. the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction as this was a dispute relating to payment that did not have its basis in a particular term under the contract
2. the adjudication process did not comply with fair procedures, and/or
3. the underlying contract was tainted by illegality because the proposed erection of the timber structure would have involved a breach of planning permissions

The Contractor was successful on the first of these three grounds. While this judgment covers a variety of different issues, it is the issue of what constitutes a dispute relating to payment that is the focus of this article.  

The Decision

In determining the core question as to what is a “dispute relating to payment” that can be referred to adjudication, the Court held:

"the right to refer a dispute to statutory adjudication is confined to circumstances where the dispute relates to a payment which is provided for under contract. The referring party must either be asserting or resisting a claim to be paid an amount which is provided for under the construction contract, i.e. a payment which is expressed or stipulated in the terms of the contract."

In short: a dispute can only be referred to statutory adjudication if that dispute relates to a payment that is expressly provided for under the contract. A dispute relating to the payment of amounts that may be owed in relation to the contract, but which are not expressly provided for in the contract (for example, a common law claim for damages for a repudiatory breach of the contract) cannot be referred to adjudication.

The Impact

While there was judicial commentary regarding the practical application of the CCA 2013 in other respects (namely, whether the service of a payment claim notice is a prerequisite to a subsequent referral to adjudication and the extent of any monetary claim that a paying party (i.e. an Employer or Contractor) under a construction contract may be able to pursue in adjudication against its counterparty) the real impact of this judgment is around its pronouncements on payment disputes.

This judgment will have both immediate and long-term consequences for parties to construction contracts. In the immediate term, the judgment brings welcome clarity as to the question of what constitutes a payment related claim that can be referred to statutory adjudication. This is likely to inform and affect the dispute resolution strategies that parties adopt going forward.

In the medium to longer term, the decision is likely to impact upon parties’ negotiation of their construction contracts with an increased focus on terms related to contractual damages (such as in the context of termination) and the right of a paying party to set-off certain costs against amounts that it owes to its counterparty.

For further information in relation to this topic or any related matter, please contact Clare Cashin, Partner, Paul McNamee, Associate, Eibhlín Clinton, Solicitor or your usual contact on the Construction & Engineering team.

Date published: 10 September 2025