VMA Services Ltd v Project One London Limited [2025] EWHC 1815 (TCC)

This article was written by Sarah Wilson and Renée Tombs.

Summary

On 18 July 2025, the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) enforced an adjudicator’s decision ordering payment of a “Notified Sum” to the responding party in a True Value Adjudication (TVA).  

The question to be decided was whether the Adjudicator had jurisdiction to make the monetary award in favour of VMA, as the respondent in the adjudication.   

Factual Background 

The Sub-Contract Order was between VMA Services Limited (the Subcontractor) and Project One London Ltd (the Contractor) (the Contract). 

The chronology is that;

1. On 21 June 2024, the Subcontractor submitted Application for Payment No.8 (AfP No 8), seeking £106,434.88.
2. Contractor failed to serve a Payment Notice or Pay Less Notice (PN/PLN).
3. On 16 December 2024, the Contractor initiated a True Value Adjudication (TVA).
4. By way of defence and counterclaim, the Subcontractor effectively raised a smash and grab adjudication in regards to the Contractors failure to issue a PN/PLN and claimed  the Notified Sum, namely the sum claimed in the AfP No 8 was due for payment. 

The adjudicator concluded:

1. The AfP No 8 was a valid AfP.
2. The Contractor had failed to issue a valid PN/PLN.
3. Therefore, under the principles of ‘smash and grab’ £106,434.88 was due as the Notified Sum, to the Subcontractor. 
4. This amounted to a full defence to the Contractors TVA.
5. The Contractor had failed to  pay the Notified Sum and the Contractor was not therefore entitled to commence a TVA.
6. The Notified Sum of £106,434.88 was due in full, plus interest by the Contractor to the Subcontractor. 

Legal background 

The Housing Grants and Construction Regeneration Act 1996, as amended (the Act) applies the intention of which is to improve cash flow in the construction industry and gives rise to the principle of “smash and grab” adjudications: if no timely PN/PLN is served, the sum applied for becomes a “Notified Sum” and is immediately payable. 

The following principles were relevant to the TCC judgement: 

1. The right to commence a TVA is superseded by the right to a smash and grab award
2. The subcontractor, as Respondent in the adjudication was entitled to raise a very wide range of matters by way of defence and counterclaim without infringing the general rule that only one dispute can be referred within a single adjudication
3. Responding Party Rights: a responding party will not (generally) be able to make a monetary recovery arising from its defence and counterclaim, as explained 

Analysis and Considerations 

A party can use a smash and grab process by way of a defence and counterclaim to a TVA

Insights that hit close to home — follow our Housing page.