The dispute centres on the Coventry & Warwickshire Development Partnership’s 215-acre SEGRO Park development, where Buckingham was contracted to excavate, treat and reposition around 5 million cu m of material to create an environmental bund.
Avison Young was appointed as NEC project manager and supervisor. However, the consultant was found to have repeatedly overstated Buckingham’s progress when assessing its monthly payment applications.
The problems were linked to two key failings.
First, the consultant accepted lower estimates for the total earthworks required without having sufficient evidence to support the reductions. By lowering the overall volume, it appeared that Buckingham had completed a larger proportion of the contract, which in turn increased the value of its payment claims.
Second, Avison Young placed significant reliance on excavation figures rather than separate production records showing how much material had actually been placed in its final location.
This resulted in progress being overstated because the assessment did not properly account for all the excavation, treatment and placement work required under the contract.
The developer initially claimed that it had overpaid Buckingham by £25.4m by the time Avison Young’s appointment ended in January 2023.
Buckingham subsequently entered administration in August that year, leaving the developer unable to recover the alleged overpayments from the contractor.
An adjudicator concluded that the consultant had failed to exercise the required skill and care. He found that progress claims had largely been accepted at face value despite Avison Young having access to conflicting records from the site.
The adjudicator identified over-certification of at least £7.69m and awarded £8.73m in damages, including interest.
Avison Young refused to make the payment, arguing that the adjudicator had effectively carried out his own valuation rather than determining the negligence claim that had been brought before him.
However, Mr Justice Eyre rejected the challenge, finding that the adjudicator had dealt with the correct dispute and had provided an adequate explanation for his decision.
He also dismissed objections concerning the use of a subsequent Gardiner & Theobald assessment, concluding that both parties had been given sufficient opportunity to comment on it.
The judge subsequently granted summary judgment to enforce the full £8.73m award.
English 