Introduced by the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, it provides parties with a rapid means of resolving disputes while preserving cashflow and allowing projects to continue. Nearly thirty years after its introduction, the process continues to evolve.
In this article, David Wilson from MFMac's Contentious Construction team examines three trends currently shaping the adjudication landscape: the enduring prevalence of "smash and grab" claims, the courts' continued preference for substance over procedural technicalities and the growing influence of artificial intelligence on dispute resolution.
'Smash and grab' adjudications remain dominant
So-called "smash and grab" claims continue to be the most common category of adjudication claim by a considerable margin. The most recent Construction Adjudication Report from King's College London found that 63% of respondents had been involved in a "smash and grab" adjudication during the previous year.
This reflects the continuing importance of the "pay now, argue later" principle. While a party that has paid a notified sum following a successful smash and grab adjudication may subsequently commence a "true value" adjudication, few parties want to incur the cost and disruption of multiple rounds of dispute resolution.
One of the most effective ways to protect yourself against a smash and grab claim is to understand the payment regime in your contract. In practice, many disputes arise because contractual payment mechanisms are overlooked once a project is underway. Keeping key payment dates, notice requirements and contractual procedures under regular review can significantly reduce the risk of a successful claim.
You should also be familiar with the requirements for valid payment notices and pay less notices, including the need to provide clear calculations supporting the sums claimed. Careful record-keeping remains essential. Measures as straightforward as using consistent project references on payment notices and invoices can prevent difficulties later on. The decision in Delta Fabrication & Glazing Ltd v Watkin Jones & Son Ltd (2021) provides a useful example of the problems that can arise where payment records are unclear or inconsistent.
Substance over form in adjudication enforcement
The courts continue to adopt a pragmatic approach when considering challenges to adjudicators' decisions. This reflects the policy objectives that have underpinned adjudication since its introduction: providing a speedy, effective and relatively informal alternative to litigation.
The process has often been described as "rough and ready", and recent decisions suggest that the courts remain reluctant to interfere with adjudicators' awards unless there is a compelling reason to do so.
The decision in Clegg Food Projects Limited v Prestige Car Direct Properties Limited (2025) illustrates this approach. In that case, Her Honour Judge Kelly observed that the statutory adjudication regime can only function effectively in practice if immaterial breaches of natural justice that have no demonstrable consequence are disregarded.
The trend in recent years has been to move away from a rigid interpretation of the statutory framework and towards a more commercially focused and practical approach. Parties seeking to resist enforcement on technical grounds are increasingly required to demonstrate that the alleged procedural failing had a genuine and material impact on the outcome.
The practical message is clear. If you become involved in an adjudication, it is important to present your strongest case at that stage. Courts are continuing to show considerable deference to adjudicators' decisions, and parties are unlikely to succeed by reserving arguments for a potential enforcement challenge.
What about AI?
Artificial intelligence is attracting significant interest across the legal and construction sectors, and adjudication is no exception. Given the compressed timescales involved, the potential benefits are obvious. AI tools can assist with document review, chronology preparation, drafting support and the analysis of large volumes of project information.
However, the risks associated with AI are equally clear. There have been several well-publicised examples of AI-generated inaccuracies appearing in legal submissions, sometimes including fictitious authorities and incorrect legal analysis. More recently, the legal profession has seen disciplinary action taken in relation to the inappropriate use of AI-generated material.
Adjudication may be particularly susceptible to these risks because of its informality and short procedural timetable. Parties often choose to represent themselves, and those without legal training may struggle to identify when AI-generated content is inaccurate, irrelevant or procedurally inappropriate.
The recent employment tribunal case of Hancox v Sutherland & Others (2026) demonstrates the potential dangers. In that case, a litigant in person submitted a 300-page skeleton argument that had been generated entirely using ChatGPT. The submission attracted significant criticism and was ultimately disregarded by the tribunal.
While AI undoubtedly has a role to play in the future of dispute resolution, it should be regarded as a tool rather than a substitute for legal judgment. Parties who rely uncritically on AI-generated material risk undermining the credibility of their case and distracting attention from the issues genuinely in dispute. Careful review and appropriate professional oversight remain essential.
Conclusion
While adjudication continues to evolve, its fundamental purpose remains unchanged: providing the construction industry with a rapid and effective means of resolving disputes.
Current trends suggest that payment-related claims remain a dominant feature of the adjudication landscape, while the courts continue to favour a practical approach that prioritises enforcement over technical challenges. At the same time, the increasing use of AI presents both opportunities and risks for parties involved in the process.
As adjudicators and the courts continue to focus on substance rather than form, parties are best served by understanding their contractual obligations, maintaining robust project records and presenting their strongest case at the adjudication stage. Emerging technologies may assist that process, but they are unlikely to replace careful preparation, professional judgment and a thorough understanding of the dispute itself.
