The recent case of Tenderbids Limited t/a Bastion v Electrical Waste Management Limited [2026] IEHC 5 provides a significant ruling for the Irish construction industry. The High Court in Ireland refused to enforce an adjudicator’s decision that awarded over €1.4 million to a contractor where the employer failed to issue a response to a payment claim notice.

In the judgment Mr Justice Simons provided guidance on the scope of the payment claim procedure within the Construction Contracts Act 2013 (“the Act”), confirming that under Irish law “smash and grab” adjudications as seen in the United Kingdom are not permitted.

If you need advice on navigating payment claims, adjudication, or compliance under the Construction Contracts Act 2013, our team at HF is ready to assist. Get in touch with our experts here.

Background

The dispute arose from a contract between Tenderbids Ltd t/a Bastion (“Tenderbids”) & Electrical Waste Management Ltd (“EWM”) to construct a metal recycling facility in Dublin valued at €6.98 million. Tenderbids submitted a payment claim notice for the value of €1.4 million in May 2024. EWM failed to respond to the claim within the 21-day period dictated by section 4 of the Act.

Tenderbids referred the issue to adjudication, they argued that EWM’s failure to respond to the payment claim notice, resulted in entitlement to full payment. In the adjudication proceedings EWM did not deny Tenderbids interpretation of section 4(3) of the Act. The adjudicator awarded Tenderbids the full amount claimed, stating:

“(a) The Respondent did not issue a payment claim response notice within the required 21 days under the Construction Contracts Act 2013.

(b) The Referring Party is therefore entitled to payment in full for the outstanding amount included in the Payment Claim Notice that remains due and owing in the sum of €1,402,457.13 plus VAT.

…”.

EWM failed to comply with the adjudicator’s decision. Consequently, Tenderbids applied to the Court to have the decision enforced.

The Judgment

Before considering the issue of the payment claim procedure Mr Justice Simons had to address the question of whether an argument be raised at enforcement stage that was conceded in front of the adjudicator.

Whilst this is typically not permitted, exception was made. EWM was allowed to address the “default direction to pay” because it was deemed to be:

“in the interests of ensuring the integrity of the overall system of adjudication and enforcement.

…

The present exception is justified only because the issue goes to the architecture of adjudication itself.”

On the issue of failure to respond to a payment claim notice and whether that creates an automatic right to payment Mr Justice Simons determined that the Act does not allow for the payee to be paid, in default, the full amount claimed in a payment claim notice, when the payer has failed to issue a response to that notice within the time prescribed period.

The Court concluded the Act is silent on what happens when no response is issued to a payment claim notice and it does not permit adjudicators to impose such a sanction. Reading in a “default direction to pay” would amount to judicial law-making.

As a result of these answers the court decided that the:

“adjudicator erred in law in determining that the employer’s failure to deliver a response to the payment claim notice triggered an entitlement… This is not the proper interpretation of the Construction Contracts Act 2013. The Act does not provide for such a default direction to pay.”

The Judge noted that while errors of law usually do not prevent enforcement (due to the “pay now, argue later” principle), this error was fundamental because it denied the employer any opportunity to defend the claim on its merits.  The refusal aims to protect the integrity of the statutory adjudication scheme, not just the employer’s position.

The Court refused to enforce the adjudicator’s decision.

What does this decision mean for the Irish Construction industry?

This decision firmly clarifies the Court’s position that “smash and grab” adjudications do not apply under the Act.

As a result, a payee will no longer be able to assume that just because it submitted a payment claim notice it is not guaranteed any response or payment. This will change how adjudication will be presented and how parties present their claims.

Do you need assistance with a Construction or Procurement issue? HF’s Construction and Procurement team can provide further advice and guidance on any of the issues above, do not hesitate to contact us here.