Tel: 01543 732135
Email: info@optimumresolution.co.uk
Optimum Resolution - Past Highlighted Cases
These are a brief selection of successful cases handled by Optimum Resolution, showcasing our expertise in ADR and mediation. Each case illustrates our commitment to achieving optimal outcomes for our clients.
Victory in Major Government Construction Adjudication
Optimum Resolution acted for a family run main contractor in a complex construction dispute concerning the fit-out and external works of a significant government facility.
The project was carried out under an NEC4 Option A contract which was originally valued at over £12 million.
As the works progressed, there were extensive change to the scope of the works, with over 200 Compensation Events, which caused substantial programme disruption and commercial impact. The client agreed value of the project had been pushed north of £19 Million
Our client faced an entrenched refusal by the government’s project management team to grant proper time extensions or recognise entitlement to associated preliminary costs, despite clear evidence of programme impact due to the significant changed scope of the project.
Following what was considered unlawful termination of the contract and an asserted final account position which sought to close out entitlement, our client instructed Optimum Resolution to lead adjudication proceedings under the NEC contract.
The Adjudication
The adjudication ran over a three-month period and involved detailed and highly technical submissions from both parties.
The government engaged a leading City law firm, a specialist London barrister, along with a senior delay expert from a global consultancy to support their defence.
Based on publicly available fee benchmarks and analysis of the expert reports and submissions, it is estimated that the government’s expenditure on external legal and expert reports exceeded £250,000 to £300,000.
Optimum Resolution prepared and delivered the full case for our client, managing all legal strategy, programming analysis and contractual argument, for a total fee of approximately £50,000.
- The adjudication involved complex disputes around:
- Proper assessment of time entitlement for Compensation Events
- Application of NEC clause 53.3: final assessment as conclusive evidence
- Alleged concurrent delay
- Associated entitlement to recover preliminary costs
- Wider NEC programme and Compensation Event procedural compliance
The Outcome
The adjudicator found decisively in favour of our client:
- Awarding an extension of time of 295 calendar days, moving the project Completion Date accordingly
- Awarding 280 days’ entitlement to recover preliminary costs in principle
- Rejecting the government’s argument that concurrent culpable delay barred time recovery
- Ordering the government to pay 80% of the adjudicator’s fees, confirming our client’s position as the successful party in the adjudication
Reflection
This case demonstrates that:
- With expert preparation and strategic argument, contractors can succeed against even the most heavily resourced government bodies and their defences
- NEC contractual rights around time entitlement and Compensation Event handling remain enforceable when properly advanced
- A lean, focused dispute resolution team can deliver highly effective results at a fraction of traditional legal cost
At Optimum Resolution, we pride ourselves on delivering clear, practical and successful outcomes in even the most challenging construction disputes, including those against major government bodies.
Successful Adjudication in Major Government Supply Chain Dispute
Optimum Resolution acted for a main contractor in a significant NEC4 construction adjudication concerning a high-security government project.
Our client, the main contractor, had engaged a specialist subcontractor to design, supply, and install a complex curtain walling system under an NEC4 Option A contract valued at nearly £1.8 million. Following specification changes imposed by the government project team, disputes arose around:
1 - The subcontractor’s entitlement to retain substantial advance payments after failing to proceed with the works
2 - The proper valuation of the Compensation Event
3 - The validity of the subcontractor’s Pay Less Notice and its subsequent Application for Payment
Faced with the subcontractor seeking to withhold £170,428.15 and assert a Compensation Event claim exceeding £638,000, both without proper substantiation, our client instructed Optimum Resolution to lead adjudication proceedings.
The Adjudication
The dispute involved fundamental NEC payment and Compensation Event principles, and turned on:
- Whether upfront payments made under negotiated payment terms could be retained after no meaningful work was carried out
- The true application of NEC4 clauses 60–66 regarding Compensation Events
- The validity of the subcontractor’s Pay Less Notice and the status of their subsequent payment application
Optimum Resolution delivered the entire adjudication strategy and submissions, handling a highly technical defence of NEC4 commercial mechanisms and the protection of our client’s cashflow position.
The Outcome
The adjudicator found decisively in favour of our client:
- Ordering the subcontractor to repay the sum of £160,428.15 certified under Payment Certificate No.2
- Rejecting the subcontractor’s asserted Compensation Event claim of over £638,000, finding it unsubstantiated and non-compliant with NEC contractual requirements
- Declaring the subcontractor’s Pay Less Notice invalid
- Ordering the subcontractor to pay 100% of the adjudicator’s fees, confirming our client as the successful party
Reflection
This case demonstrated:
- The value of strict NEC compliance, poorly prepared or opportunistic Compensation Event claims will fail when properly challenged
- The importance of protecting advance payments, where no works are carried out, the payer is entitled to recover funds, despite aggressive subcontractor tactics
- The need for robust and well-prepared Pay Less Notices, the adjudicator upheld Optimum’s arguments in full on this point, reinforcing case law clarity in this area
Optimum’s Role
This was a commercially vital dispute for our client, with nearly £170,000 at stake in the short term and over £638,000 in further claims blocked through a successful adjudication strategy.
Optimum Resolution delivered this victory on a lean, focused fee base, providing full legal and NEC tactical support in a highly contested adjudication process.
Success in JCT Subcontract Adjudication using Promissory Estoppel
Optimum Resolution acted for a specialist groundworks subcontractor in a fiercely contested adjudication concerning payment under a JCT subcontract for a major retail project.
The client had delivered complex concrete framed building and groundworks under a re-measurable JCT subcontract, valued at approximately £930,000.
A dispute arose when the main contractor refused to pay £276,782.61 due under the client's Application 7, claiming late submission of the application and reliance on strict contractual terms.
Throughout the project, the main contractor had consistently accepted and processed previous late applications, issuing corresponding Payment Notices and making payments without objection. This established a clear pattern of conduct.
When the contractor sought to treat Application 7 differently, withholding payment without issuing a Pay Less Notice, Optimum Resolution led the adjudication for the subcontractor, advancing a robust argument based on promissory estoppel.
The Adjudication
The case involved:
- Application of promissory estoppel, relying on the contractor’s consistent past conduct of treating late applications as valid
- Enforcement of statutory rights under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 and the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009
- Defence of the subcontractor’s suspension rights under Section 112 of the Act
- Protection of the subcontractor’s entitlement to the applied-for sum in the absence of a valid Pay Less Notice
Optimum Resolution delivered the full legal strategy, submissions and estoppel argument, defeating the contractor’s technical defence and attempts to reframe the payment mechanism.
The Outcome
The adjudicator awarded decisively in favour of our client:
- Awarding payment of the full £276,782.61 due under Application 7
- Upholding the application as valid and enforceable and rejecting the contractor’s reliance on strict time provisions due to its prior conduct
- Recognising that promissory estoppel applied, the contractor could not resile from its consistent prior behaviour
- Upholding the subcontractor’s statutory suspension rights under Section 112
- Ordering the main contractor to pay 100% of the adjudicator’s fees, confirming our client as the clear successful party
Reflection
This case demonstrated:
- The critical value of understanding and correctly deploying promissory estoppel, a powerful but often underused tool in payment disputes
- The importance of consistent contract administration, with parties who establish a practice cannot later rely on strict contract terms to deny payment
- The ability of a well-prepared subcontractor, with expert support, to defeat aggressive main contractor tactics and protect its commercial entitlement
Optimum Resolution delivered this outcome through strategic legal argument and practical commercial focus, achieving a full recovery for our client.
Victory in NEC Subcontract Adjudication Against Major Contractor and Expert Evidence
Optimum Resolution acted for a specialist civil engineering subcontractor in a significant adjudication against one of the UK’s largest main contractors.
The client was engaged under an NEC3 Option B subcontract to carry out drainage works for a major infrastructure road project.
During the works, extensive hard material was encountered in drainage runs. The Bill of Quantities had excluded quantifying Hard material. The main contractor refused to recognise this as a Compensation Event under the contract, despite the Method of Measurement for Highway Works (MMHW) clearly requiring a separate measured item for such material.
Our client faced a determined defence by the main contractor, who engaged a leading law firm and a RICS-qualified expert witness to argue that no Compensation Event arose and that no additional payment was due.
Optimum Resolution led the adjudication strategy and prepared the full legal and contractual argument, including a detailed technical rebuttal of the main contractor’s expert evidence.
The Adjudication
.The adjudication centred on:
- Correct application of NEC3 clause 60.6 in relation to a mistake in the Bill of Quantities
- The correct interpretation of MMHW and the definition of Hard Material
- Whether the omission of the item from the Bill of Quantities constituted a mistake
- Whether the subcontractor was entitled to additional payment for encountering Hard material
- Validity of the main contractor’s Pay Less Notice, and subsequent conduct
The main contractor’s legal team advanced procedural arguments and relied heavily on a report by their RICS-qualified expert.
Optimum Resolution exposed multiple flaws in that report, including critical misinterpretation of MMHW and failure to acknowledge the correct contractual definition of Hard Material.
The Outcome
The adjudicator found decisively in favour of our client:
- Declaring that the encounter of Hard material constituted a Compensation Event under clause 60.6
- Ordering that the Compensation Event be valued in accordance with the Shorter Schedule of Cost Components
- Rejecting the main contractor’s reliance on clause 28 exclusions and procedural defences
- Dismissing key elements of the expert’s evidence, specifically finding that the contractual definition of Hard Material had been misinterpreted
- Ordering the main contractor to pay 100% of the adjudicator’s fees, and Confirming our client’s full success in the adjudication
Reflection
This case demonstrates:
- The importance of detailed understanding of NEC contractual mechanisms and industry standards such as MMHW
- The value of a robust, evidence-based challenge to expert witness reports when they are inaccurate or biased
- The power of correctly deployed clause 60.6 argument in protecting subcontractors where Bills of Quantities are defective
- The ability of an SME subcontractor, with expert support, to overcome heavy main contractor legal and expert resources
Optimum Resolution’s handling of this case delivered full validation of our client’s position, overcoming aggressive legal tactics and exposing serious shortcomings in the Responding Party’s expert evidence.
© Copyright. All rights reserved.
We need your consent to load the translations
We use a third-party service to translate the website content that may collect data about your activity. Please review the details in the privacy policy and accept the service to view the translations.