Legal Developments in Construction Law: February 2026
1. Assignee’s right to adjudicate under a construction contract confirmed
In Paragon Group Limited v FK Facades Limited [2026] EWHC 78 (TCC) the High Court has confirmed that the assignee of a construction contract can refer disputes to adjudication. This right applies whether via an express contractual adjudication right or through statutory adjudication rights pursuant to the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (“HGCRA”). This point had not come for previous judicial consideration.
The dispute arose under an amended JCT Minor Works Building Contract 2016 (“Contract”), relating to remedial works at a commercial property in Greater Manchester, for which the defendant FK Facades Limited (“FKF”) was Contractor. The Contract permitted assignment of benefits by the Employer without the Contractor’s consent. There followed two assignments of the Employer’s rights, the second of which vested the Employer’s rights in the claimant Paragon Group Limited (“Paragon”). Paragon sought to enforce an adjudicator’s award against FKF for £80,500 plus adjudicator’s fees, following its termination of the contract and a claim for liquidated damages.
FKF challenged the adjudicator’s jurisdiction, arguing that only an original party to the contract could refer disputes to adjudication under the HGCRA and the Scheme for Construction Contracts (the “Scheme”) which governed the adjudication process under the Contract.
The Court assessed the contract terms, the Scheme, and the general principles of assignment under section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925. The Court noted that, while an assignee does not actually become a party to the contract in the full sense (which would require a novation), a statutory assignment transfers not only the right to the benefit of the contract but also all legal remedies.
The Court looked at the definitions of Employer, Contactor and Party under the Contract and found that the contractual rights to adjudicate under Article 6 and clause 7.2 must be read in light of the amended contract clause 3.1 allowing assignment, and a proper reading meant assignees would be included within such definitions. The Court found that the statutory assignment of the benefit of all legal rights under a contract would include assignment of legal remedies such as right to adjudicate (unless excluded). FKF argued a number of practical complications arise in allowing an assignee to adjudicate. The Court was not swayed by that argument and noted several of the issues argued were inherent in adjudications anyway, and any errors or inconsistences in an adjudicator’s decision could always be corrected by litigation.
The Court held that an assignee of the benefit of a construction contract is entitled to refer disputes to adjudication, and that the adjudicator’s decision is enforceable. FKF’s jurisdictional challenge was rejected, and summary judgment was granted in favour of Paragon.
This case provides welcome judicial clarity on an important but previously unconsidered point. Construction contracts are often assigned for various reasons and this judgment establishes that assignees will be able to adjudicate under assigned construction contracts and enforce adjudicator’s decisions. If a party has specific concerns about adjudication proceedings, by or against any potential assignee under any construction contracts it enters into, it should consider either prohibiting the right to assignment or excluding the right to adjudicate from any assigned rights.
Paragon Group Limited v FK Facades Limited [2026] EWHC 78 (TCC) (20 January 2026)
2. Court rejects attempt to raise new Adjudication jurisdiction arguments at enforcement stage
The High Court recently considered an application to enforce an adjudicator’s decision where some of the defence’s jurisdictional arguments were being raised for the first time at the enforcement stage.
Murnells London Limited v Christopher Beale [2025] EWHC 2651 (TCC) dealt with the application by Murnells London Limited (the “Claimant”) for summary judgment enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision for £365,000. Christian Beale (the “Defendant”) engaged Murnells Limited (“ML”) for renovation works at a residential property under an executed letter of intent. No subsequent contract was signed although several iterations were circulated for signature in the name of the Claimant. The project fell into delay and dispute, the Defendant terminated the contract and the Claimant commenced an adjudication.
The Defendant resisted summary enforcement on two principal jurisdictional grounds: (i) that the adjudication had been commenced by the wrong contracting entity, i.e. by the Claimant rather than ML and (ii) that the dispute had not crystallised prior to the notice of adjudication. The Defendant had made general reservations of rights to raise jurisdictional arguments during the adjudication and subsequently sought to advance additional detailed arguments at the enforcement stage.
The Court, considering appropriate authorities, restated the principles that jurisdictional objections must be raised “appropriately and clearly” during the adjudication. While a general reservation of rights may in some rare circumstances be effective, it will not suffice where the objector knew or ought to have known of specific grounds but failed to articulate them as the Court considered to be the case here. The Court noted it should be cautious not to undermine the “pay now, argue later” policy underpinning the statutory adjudication regime, and if that lead to temporary rough justice that is to be anticipated. The Court held that the Defendant had waived the right to rely on new or expanded arguments not properly raised before the adjudicator for his consideration.
On the contracting entity issue as to which entity was the actual Contractor, the Court found the Defendant had only "fanciful prospects" of establishing the Claimant was not the relevant contracting party. This finding was based on various evidence including that fact the Defendant's own quantity surveyor had prepared versions of the draft contract which clearly identified the Claimant as the contractor and this was not queried by any party before versions of the contract were signed by each of the parties.
The Defendant further argued that the dispute had not crystallised, as the extension of time claim referred to in the adjudication notice differed from earlier claims. The Court, following the approach in St Austell Printing Company Ltd v Dawnus Construction Holdings Ltd [2015] EWHC 96 (TCC), reiterated that a dispute will be deemed to have crystallised where a claim is not accepted within a reasonable period after being put forward, and that excessive particularisation is not required. On the facts, the Court found that the dispute had sufficiently crystallised prior to the notice of adjudication.
The Court granted summary judgment in favour of the Claimant, enforcing the adjudicator’s decision. The judgment underscores the importance for parties to raise specific jurisdictional objections promptly during adjudication and that general “catch all” reservations as to jurisdiction are unlikely to succeed. The judgment also reiterates the need to ensure clarity as to the contracting entity in construction contracts to avoid possible jurisdiction arguments on that point.
Murnells London Ltd v Beale [2025] EWHC 2651 (TCC) (Date 4 September 2025)
3. Use of Freezing Orders to preserve assets pending enforcement of an Adjudicator’s decision
The High Court recently heard an application to renew a Freezing Order to prevent dissipation of assets while the parties awaited an enforcement hearing for an adjudicator’s decision.
Contractor High Tech Construction Limited (“HTC”) commenced an adjudication for monies outstanding on works it has done on a development in North West London (the “Property”) owned by the Employer WLP Trading & Management Limited (“WLP”). The Adjudicator found for HTC in an amount of £2.1m being the remaining contract sum less the sole initial payment of £250,000. In November 2025 HTC was granted a Freezing Order (ex-parte) preventing WLP’s disposal of assets while awaiting enforcement proceedings. The current case concerned the application for renewal of the Freezing Order.
The Court considered points of service, the information requirements of the Freezing Order and the conduct of parties during the adjudication and since issue of the Freezing Order. The Court found that WLP’s compliance with the information requirements of the Freezing Order was wanting and was neither frank nor complete.
The Court then assessed the basic requirements for a Freezing Order namely:
- a good and arguable case on the merits;
- a real risk that a judgment to enforce an adjudicator’s decision will go unsatisfied because of disposal by WLP of its assets unless an injunction is granted; and
- it is just and convenient to grant the order.
The Court accepted there was a good and arguable case in respect of its claim to enforce the decision.
The Court also found there was a real risk of dissipation of WLP’s assets ahead of enforcement proceedings based on various evidence including:
- the financial standing of WLP;
- the fact WLP appeared to only have bank accounts in Cyprus and could easily relocate assets abroad;
- ·no explanation of a new charge over the Property;
- WLP setting up a new related company associated with the Property again with no explanation; and
- WLP’s noncompliance with the initial Freezing Order.
The Court found it was just and convenient to grant the order and was not swayed by arguments it would cause reputational risk to WLP or would be materially and disproportionality disruptive to its business operations.
Where a counterparty debtor is dissipating its assets to avoid a repayment obligation, this case reiterates that use of a Freezing Order can be a useful injunctive tool to preserve assets while parties await enforcement proceedings. However, although the presence of an adjudicator’s decision will likely be evidence of a good and arguable case, it is the risk of dissipation of assets that is key. The dissipation risks should be clearly outlined and evidenced in any application for a Freezing Order.
High Tech Construction Ltd v WLP Trading and Marketing Ltd [2025] EWHC 3209 (TCC) (08 December 2025)
4. MHCLG launches new quarterly Building Safety newsletter
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (“MHCLG”) has launched a new quarterly building safety newsletter and published the first edition in January 2026. The quarterly newsletter will provide updates on legislation, consultations, regulatory developments and relevant guidance relating to building safety. The January 2026 newsletter covers:
- the latest quarterly progress report on Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 recommendations;
- the single construction regulator consultation;
- the recently published code of practice for remediation of residential buildings; and
- the Office for Product Safety and Standards.
Building safety newsletter - GOV.UK
5. Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 given Royal Assent
The Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (“Act”) received Royal Assent on 18 December 2025. The Act is a key tool in the UK Government’s economic growth mission, implementation of its 10 year Infrastructure strategy and its plan to build 1.5 million new homes by the end of the current Parliament.
Some of the main changes instituted by the Act include:
- Limiting the number of attempts at legal challenge of Government decisions on major infrastructure projects.
- Establishment of a nature restoration fund to allow developers to commence developments quicker with Natural England putting in place measures to restore natural habitats.
- Faster approval of major infrastructure projects.
- Enabling non water sector companies to build reservoirs.
- Modernizing planning committees to speed up decisions on new homes.
Landmark Planning and Infrastructure Bill becomes law - GOV.UK
Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025
6. MHCLG launches National Planning Policy Framework consultation
On 16 December 2025 the MHCLG launched a consultation on a revised National Planning Policy Framework and other changes to the planning system. Some of the key proposals involve:
- reforming site development thresholds to introduce a new “medium” category for developments of 10-49 homes on a site up to 2.5 hectares;
- extending Building Safety Levy small site exemptions to any new medium category; and
- establishing “in principle” support for proposals to develop land around rail stations.
7. ONS figures show a 1.3% decrease in UK construction output for November 2025
The Office for National Statistics (“ONS”) has released figures for UK construction output for the three months to November 2025. The reported figures show a decline in output of 1.1% over that period (which was the largest quarterly fall since March 2023) with a fall of 1.3% in the month of November 2025 alone. Of the reported sectors private housing repair and maintenance had the greatest decline in output of 3.7% over the three month period.
The ONS states that anecdotal evidence suggests that output over this period was affected by delays in work and consumer spending due to uncertainty ahead of the UK’s Autumn 2025 budget.
Construction output in Great Britain - Office for National Statistics
8. Tender Prices increase 2.5% in a year
The Building Costs Information Service (“BCIS”) has released results for its latest Tender price Index (“BCIS TPI”) on 19 January 2026 showing both a quarterly and annual increase in tender prices. The BCIS TPI showed an estimated increase in tender prices of 0.7% in the final quarter of 2025, with an annual increase of 2.5% over the whole of 2025.
The BCIS TPI panel suggested despite increased tender prices and several industry challenges, including resourcing and insolvencies, that demand for new work was strong and a majority of panel respondents anticipated an increased pipeline of projects in 2026.
BCIS Tender Price Index | Estimate of Tender Price Inflation
9. Competition issues in the Housebuilding Sector remain under scrutiny
An investigation in 2025 by the UK Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”) into UK housebuilders was closed without any finding of infringement, although there had been several binding commitments made to the CMA by 7 major housebuilders. Despite the closure of this investigation, a consumer action for damages is expected to be filed imminently against several housebuilders with potential overspill to other players in the market. Businesses operating in this sector should consider risks of potential litigation.
