Keystone Law has successfully represented Octavius Infrastructure in High Court proceedings concerning the attempted enforcement of a £416,499 adjudication award arising from a Network Rail step-free access project at Chalkwell Station in Essex.
The case concerned a dispute between Octavius Infrastructure – a leading infrastructure business carrying out complex, safety-critical works across the UK’s rail and highways networks – and specialist lift manufacturer Serapid, over whether the parties had entered into a binding subcontract for the manufacture and installation of lifts for the project.
Serapid had secured an adjudication award of £416,499, excluding VAT, but Octavius challenged enforcement on the basis that no subcontract had been entered into and, consequently, challenged the adjudicator’s jurisdiction.
On 22 October 2026, Mr Justice Moody dismissed Serapid’s application for summary judgment, finding that Octavius had a real prospect of establishing that no binding subcontract existed.
The judgment highlights an important issue for businesses throughout the construction and infrastructure sectors: starting work while negotiations are continuing does not, by itself, necessarily establish that the parties have entered into a binding contract.
The Keystone team was led by Construction Partner Louise Garcia and included Construction Consultant Solicitor Neave Maguire, paralegal Lucy Ramsey and legal assistant Lila Priechenfried. Peter Brogden of Keating Chambers represented the team in court.
Louise Garcia said:
“This judgment provides an important reminder for contractors and suppliers about the need for clarity when negotiating and performing construction contracts. The fact that work has commenced does not necessarily mean that a binding contract has been formed, particularly where important contractual and commercial matters remain under negotiation.
“It also underlines the significance of jurisdiction in adjudication proceedings. Where there is a genuine dispute about whether the underlying contract exists, that issue can have a fundamental bearing on whether an adjudicator’s decision can be summarily enforced.”
For further information please contact:
