Contract Nexus

Contract Nexus The Hub for Contractual Justice. We represent contractors, subcontractors, and self-employed individuals.

or any person, specifically when payments are delayed or disputed, to secure the cash flow your or your business depends on. Nadeira is a leading expert in construction commercial management, possessing over 25 years of cross-border experience in the UK and Nordic markets. Her multidisciplinary background allows her to bridge the gap between complex financial accounting, commercial governance and

high-stakes contract & construction law, ensuring that every claim is not just legally sound, but mathematically airtight. Nadeira holds a Bachelor of Arts (with Honours) in Accounting and Finance, providing her with a rigorous foundation in the fiscal realities of large-scale infrastructure and build projects. Furthering her technical expertise, she earned an MSc in Quantity Surveying and holds the prestigious RICS Diploma in Construction Adjudication. As a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (FCIArb), Nadeira is part of an elite tier of dispute resolution professionals. Her career is defined by a deep commitment to proactive contract administration, leveraging her background to protect client cash flow and resolve disputes through fast-track adjudication and mediation.

08/05/2026

Not been paid for construction work? We may be able to help.

If youโ€™re a contractor, subcontractor, tradesperson, or construction business struggling because payment hasnโ€™t come in, you may have rights under the Construction Act, as long as the work is not for a residential occupier.

This can apply to many types of non-residential construction work, including:

๐Ÿ—๏ธ Building, alteration, repair, maintenance, extension or demolition
๐Ÿงฑ Groundworks, foundations, brickwork and structural works
๐Ÿ”ง Mechanical, electrical, plumbing, heating and ventilation works
๐ŸชŸ Roofing, glazing, plastering, decorating and fit-out works
๐Ÿ›ฃ๏ธ Roads, drainage, utilities, civil engineering and infrastructure works
๐ŸŒณ Landscaping and external works
๐Ÿ“ Architectural, design, surveying and engineering services
๐Ÿ‘ท Labour supplied for construction operations

The Construction Act can help with issues such as unpaid invoices, payment notices, pay less notices, suspension for non-payment, and adjudication.

If youโ€™ve carried out non-residential construction work and are still waiting to be paid, donโ€™t ignore it. Get in touch and weโ€™ll help you understand your options.

๐Ÿ“ฉ Message us today for a confidential discussion.

This post is general information only and is not legal advice. Eligibility depends on the contract, the client, and the type of work involved.

10/02/2026

Without-Prejudice

Case: AZ v BY ([2023] EWHC 2388 (TCC)) โ€” TCC (High Court) โ€ข 2023-09-27

What happened:
โ€ข Without prejudice, settlement material was put before an adjudicator.
โ€ข The court considered whether that created apparent bias, even without actual bias.

What the court said:
โ€ข The court treated the decision as unenforceable due to apparent bias arising from exposure to privileged material.

Why it matters:
โ€ข Privilege mistakes arenโ€™t cosmetic; they can destroy enforceability.
โ€ข You need document hygiene and redaction discipline under time pressure.

Do this now: Run a โ€˜privilege gateโ€™ before uploading any bundle: redactions, labels, and a second set of eyes.

Judgment link in comments.
General information only, not legal advice.

Discussion: Who owns privilege checks in your disputes: legal, commercial, or a shared workflow?

Case: Lidl Great Britain Ltd v Closed Circuit Cooling Ltd (t/a 3CL) ([2023] EWHC 2243 (TCC)) TCC (High Court) โ€ข 2023-09-...
07/02/2026

Case: Lidl Great Britain Ltd v Closed Circuit Cooling Ltd (t/a 3CL) ([2023] EWHC 2243 (TCC)) TCC (High Court) โ€ข 2023-09-11

What happened:
โ€ข The dispute involved payment/pay less notices and whether payment timing could be made conditional on a VAT invoice.
โ€ข The court also dealt with whether a hybrid notice approach worked.

What the court said:
โ€ข The judgment reinforced that the final date for payment must be a fixed period after the due date (not conditional on an event).

Why it matters:
โ€ข Contract drafting can create compliance landmines, especially in payment mechanisms.
โ€ข Operationally: finance, QS, and contract drafting must align.

Do this now: Review your payment clauses: the due date can be event-based, but the final date for payment must be fixed.

Judgment link in comments.
General information only, not legal advice.

Discussion: Do your payment processes ever treat โ€˜invoice receivedโ€™ as the real start of the clock?

05/02/2026

Why your local shop can legally refuse to sell to you. ๐Ÿท๏ธ
In 1961, a flick-knife caused a legal revolution. Most people think a price tag is a binding contract. Itโ€™s not. Itโ€™s an "Invitation to Treat."
This subtle distinction is the shield that protects retailers and the foundation of how we buy and sell today.
Do you think the law should be changed to force shops to sell at the marked price? Letโ€™s debate in the comments. โš–๏ธ

๐‚๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐งโ€™๐ญ ๐ซ๐ž-๐ญ๐ซ๐ฒ ๐š๐๐ฃ๐ฎ๐๐ข๐œ๐š๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ. ๐“๐ก๐ž๐ฒ ๐ž๐ง๐Ÿ๐จ๐ซ๐œ๐ž ๐ฎ๐ง๐ฅ๐ž๐ฌ๐ฌ ๐ฌ๐จ๐ฆ๐ž๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐ง๐  ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ซ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐›๐ซ๐จ๐ค๐ž๐ง.If you think you can overturn an award ...
05/02/2026

๐‚๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐งโ€™๐ญ ๐ซ๐ž-๐ญ๐ซ๐ฒ ๐š๐๐ฃ๐ฎ๐๐ข๐œ๐š๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ. ๐“๐ก๐ž๐ฒ ๐ž๐ง๐Ÿ๐จ๐ซ๐œ๐ž ๐ฎ๐ง๐ฅ๐ž๐ฌ๐ฌ ๐ฌ๐จ๐ฆ๐ž๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐ง๐  ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ซ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐›๐ซ๐จ๐ค๐ž๐ง.
If you think you can overturn an award simply because the adjudicator got the facts or the law wrong, think again. In the UK, the courts don't re-mark the adjudicatorโ€™s homework.

The Case: Carillion Construction Ltd v Devonport Royal Dockyard Ltd [2005]

What Happened: Carillion resisted enforcement by attacking the adjudicatorโ€™s complex reasoning and methodology. They argued the decision was fundamentally flawed.

What the Court Said: The Court of Appeal reinforced the Pay Now, Argue Later principle. They ruled that enforcement is the norm, even if the decision is rough.

Errors aren't enough: An adjudicator can be wrong on the facts and the law, but as long as they had jurisdiction and followed natural justice, the award stands.

Exceptional Interference: The court will intervene only if the process itself was broken, e.g., a serious breach of fairness, not just because the result was unpopular.

Why it Matters: Treating adjudication as a rough draft is an expensive mistake. Because the bar for challenging enforcement is so high, you should assume the award is 100% final until a full trial or arbitration, which could be years away.

The Strategy: Build an enforcement-ready record from day one. Focus on clear submissions and a tight evidence pack to ensure the adjudicator has the best chance to get it right the first time.

Judgment: [2005] EWCA Civ 1358 General information only, not legal advice.

Discussion: Whatโ€™s your biggest enforcement risk: service, scope, or evidence quality?

๐ˆ๐Ÿ ๐š๐ง ๐š๐๐ฃ๐ฎ๐๐ข๐œ๐š๐ญ๐จ๐ซ ๐ฌ๐ก๐ฎ๐ญ๐ฌ ๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ ๐š ๐ซ๐ž๐š๐ฅ ๐๐ž๐Ÿ๐ž๐ง๐œ๐ž, ๐ž๐ง๐Ÿ๐จ๐ซ๐œ๐ž๐ฆ๐ž๐ง๐ญ ๐œ๐š๐ง ๐œ๐จ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐š๐ฉ๐ฌ๐ž.Case: Pilon Ltd v Breyer Group Plc ([2010] EWHC 837...
04/02/2026

๐ˆ๐Ÿ ๐š๐ง ๐š๐๐ฃ๐ฎ๐๐ข๐œ๐š๐ญ๐จ๐ซ ๐ฌ๐ก๐ฎ๐ญ๐ฌ ๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ ๐š ๐ซ๐ž๐š๐ฅ ๐๐ž๐Ÿ๐ž๐ง๐œ๐ž, ๐ž๐ง๐Ÿ๐จ๐ซ๐œ๐ž๐ฆ๐ž๐ง๐ญ ๐œ๐š๐ง ๐œ๐จ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐š๐ฉ๐ฌ๐ž.

Case: Pilon Ltd v Breyer Group Plc ([2010] EWHC 837 (TCC)), TCC (High Court) โ€ข 2010-04-23

What happened:
โ€ข The responding party said it had an overpayment/setโ€‘off defence outside the claimantโ€™s framing.
โ€ข The adjudicator excluded parts of that defence from consideration.

What the court said:
โ€ข The court refused to enforce because excluding a material defence created a natural justice problem.

Why it matters:
โ€ข โ€˜Tacticalโ€™ scope-limiting can backfire: you might win the adjudication and still lose the money.
โ€ข For respondents, the key is to show the defence was truly within the dispute being decided.

Do this now: Donโ€™t play scope games. Frame the dispute so the adjudicator can hear the whole valuation story.

Judgment link in comments.
General information only, not legal advice.

Discussion: Do your disputes blow up because of set-off/contra-charges, or because the payment notices are messy?

๐“๐ก๐ž ๐œ๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ ๐ฆ๐š๐ฒ ๐›๐ข๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐š๐ญ ๐š๐ ๐ซ๐ž๐ž๐ ๐œ๐จ๐ง๐ญ๐ซ๐š๐œ๐ญ ๐œ๐ฅ๐š๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ž. ๐‡๐ž๐ซ๐ž'๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐ก๐ฒ!Case: Yuanda (UK) Co Ltd v WW Gear Construction Ltd ([2010] EW...
03/02/2026

๐“๐ก๐ž ๐œ๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ ๐ฆ๐š๐ฒ ๐›๐ข๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐š๐ญ ๐š๐ ๐ซ๐ž๐ž๐ ๐œ๐จ๐ง๐ญ๐ซ๐š๐œ๐ญ ๐œ๐ฅ๐š๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ž. ๐‡๐ž๐ซ๐ž'๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐ก๐ฒ!

Case: Yuanda (UK) Co Ltd v WW Gear Construction Ltd ([2010] EWHC 720 (TCC)), TCC (High Court) โ€ข 2010-04-13

What happened:
โ€ข The contract attempted to shift adjudication costs onto one party in what we call a โ€˜Tolentโ€™ style clause.
โ€ข That clashed with statutory rules on cost allocation.

What the court said:
โ€ข The court treated the cost-shifting clause as ineffective under the Construction Act framework.

Why it matters:
โ€ข Cost clauses can quietly decide whether parties actually use adjudication.
โ€ข Bad drafting creates unenforceable risk and negotiation noise.

Do this now: Audit your templates for Tolent-style cost shifting before the next subcontract goes out.

Judgment link in comments.
General information only, not legal advice.

Discussion: In your market, do cost clauses genuinely change behaviour, or do parties adjudicate anyway?

๐“๐ก๐ž ยฃ๐Ÿ”๐Ÿ“๐Ÿ’๐ค ๐Œ๐š๐ญ๐ก ๐„๐ซ๐ซ๐จ๐ซ: ๐‚๐š๐ง ๐˜๐จ๐ฎ ๐…๐ข๐ฑ ๐š ๐๐จ๐ญ๐œ๐ก๐ž๐ ๐€๐ฐ๐š๐ซ๐?A math mistake in an award can sometimes be corrected, but only if itโ€™...
02/02/2026

๐“๐ก๐ž ยฃ๐Ÿ”๐Ÿ“๐Ÿ’๐ค ๐Œ๐š๐ญ๐ก ๐„๐ซ๐ซ๐จ๐ซ: ๐‚๐š๐ง ๐˜๐จ๐ฎ ๐…๐ข๐ฑ ๐š ๐๐จ๐ญ๐œ๐ก๐ž๐ ๐€๐ฐ๐š๐ซ๐?
A math mistake in an award can sometimes be corrected, but only if itโ€™s genuinely clerical.

The Case: Axis M&E UK Ltd v Multiplex Construction Europe Ltd [2019]

The Blunder: The adjudicator double-counted contra-charges. His original math showed ยฃ0 was payable. After realising the mistake, he issued a corrected award for ยฃ654,119.65.

The Conflict: Multiplex argued this wasn't a slip; it was the adjudicator fundamentally changing his mind, a second bite at the cherry, which would make the new award invalid.

The Courtโ€™s Ruling: The TCC (High Court) enforced the corrected award. Mr Justice Fraser clarified:

First Thoughts vs. Second Thoughts: The slip rule is intended to ensure the award reflects what the adjudicator intended in the first place.

The Gateway Error: Once an arithmetic error is found, the adjudicator can also fix consequential items like who pays the fees and interest to make the award make sense.

Itโ€™s Narrow: You can fix a typo or a math glitch, but you can't fix a flawed legal logic after the award is out.
Under the Scheme, you usually have a tiny 5-day window to request a correction.

If you spot an error, act within 24-48 hours. Keep your request strictly focused on the mechanics of the math, not the merits of the decision. Document it clearly as a slip to avoid jurisdictional challenges.

Address

Camberley

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Contract Nexus posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to Contract Nexus:

Share