The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) delivered a number of interesting decisions during 2025. While the year has not been characterised by radical legal change, the courts have consistently reaffirmed established principles and applied them robustly.
These decisions provide valuable insight into how the courts are responding to the commercial realities of modern construction, from payment disputes and adjudication tactics to building safety, contract risk allocation and communications on live projects.
This review focuses on the practical lessons from some of these interesting decisions.
Key themes emerging from 2025
Across the year, a consistent picture emerged. The courts continued to support adjudication as a quick and effective route to interim resolution, and they were reluctant to let tactical points frustrate that purpose. At the same time, judges remained alert to the limits of jurisdiction, the risks created by insolvency and the need for procedural fairness. In payment disputes, the focus was on whether notices achieved their statutory function, not on perfection of form. Alongside this, building safety decisions continued to expand the importance of long-tail liability management and supply-chain recourse.
Payment and cash flow: ‘pay less’ notices under scrutiny
Cash flow remains one of the most common sources of dispute in the construction sector. In Placefirst Construction Ltd v Car Construction (North East) Ltd, the High Court provided important clarification on the timing of pay less notices under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996.
The High Court confirmed that the Construction Act does not impose a rigid sequence that prevents a pay less notice being served before a payment notice. The practical question is whether the paying party clearly communicated, at the relevant time, an intention to pay less and the basis for that position.
This may reduce the scope for arguments based on timing alone. For payees considering a smash and grab approach, it is a reminder to review the whole payment cycle and the documents exchanged, not just whether a particular notice arrived in an expected order.
A more detailed review of this case can be found in our articles ‘Placefirst v CAR, what the TCC really expects from payment and pay less notices’ and ‘Placefirst Construction Ltd v CAR Construction’.
That said, expensive disputes and uncertainty is best avoided by carefully complying with the payment regime in the relevant contract.
Characterisation of notices: labels matter
Vision Construct Ltd v Gypcraft Drylining Contractors Ltd reinforced the strict operation of the Construction Act payment regime. The TCC confirmed that where a paying party fails to issue a compliant Payment Notice on time, and does not serve a valid Pay Less Notice, the full amount applied for will ordinarily become the notified sum, regardless of the underlying valuation. Attempts to rely on estoppel based on past informality were rejected, and the court made clear that a document must be judged by what it purports to be when served. A late or non-compliant Payment Notice cannot be retrospectively reclassified as a Pay Less Notice to rescue missed deadlines. The decision underlines that administrative discipline and clear labelling are essential to managing payment risk.
Building safety, information orders and extended liability
Building safety issues continued to dominate litigation in 2025. In BDW Trading Ltd v Ardmore Construction Ltd and others, the High Court considered applications for information orders under the Building Safety Act 2022. The court adopted a cautious approach, suggesting that such orders may be granted sparingly and that their scope may be limited.
By contrast, in 381 Southwark Park Road RTM Company Ltd v Click St Andrews Ltd (in liquidation), the court adopted a broader approach, granting information orders against multiple parties and making a building liability order against a parent company, despite the presence of intermediate corporate layers.
These contrasting decisions demonstrate that the law in this area is still developing. Parties considering applications for information orders or building liability orders will need to think carefully about proportionality, evidence and strategy.
Evolving scopes of work and contract formation
In Lapp Industries Ltd v First Formations Ltd [2025] EWHC 943 (TCC), the court considered whether multiple quotations and instructions gave rise to a series of separate contracts or a single overarching agreement. Upholding the adjudicator’s decision, the court found that the parties’ dealings pointed to an overarching contractual framework, notwithstanding that the scope of works expanded significantly over time.
The court emphasised that contract formation is assessed objectively, by reference to what reasonable businesspeople would have understood from the parties’ conduct. This reinforces a realistic and commercial approach to construction contracting.
Contract terms and supporting documents
The interaction between standard form contracts and supporting documents was examined in John Sisk and Son Ltd v Capital & Centric (Rose) Ltd. Although the amendments to the JCT Design and Build Contract appeared to allocate extensive risk to the contractor, a clarification within the Employer’s Requirements carved out responsibility for existing structures.
The court’s objective analysis showed that supporting documents can significantly alter risk allocation, even where front-end terms appear comprehensive.
For construction professionals, the case is a reminder that technical documents, clarifications and schedules should be reviewed with the same care as core contractual terms.
Assignment and Novation
Grove Construction (London) Ltd v Bagshot Manor Ltd is a useful reminder that assignment typically transfers benefits, not burdens. If contractual liabilities are intended to move to a new entity, a novation is usually required. For contractors, this can affect who you can pursue for payment, retention or variations. For funders and purchasers, it reinforces the importance of checking whether documentation properly transfers obligations as well as rights. If allowing these rights in a contract or opting to exercise them during a project it is crucial to ensure that the effect of these processes is properly understood and correctly implemented.
Mitigation and remedial strategies
In Southern Electricity Power Distribution plc v OCU Modus Ltd, the High Court considered whether an innocent party was obliged to adopt the cheapest available remedial scheme when mitigating loss.
The court confirmed that reasonableness, not lowest cost, is the correct test. Where there is an objectively justifiable reason for selecting a more expensive solution, such as avoiding significant disruption, that approach may be recoverable.
Defective premises and extended limitation
The Supreme Court’s decision in URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd was one of the most widely discussed judgments of the year. The court confirmed that the extended limitation periods introduced by the Building Safety Act apply not only to direct claims under the Defective Premises Act 1972, but also to onward claims against the supply chain.
The judgment also confirmed that developers can both owe and be owed duties under the Defective Premises Act, and that contribution claims can arise even where remedial works are undertaken voluntarily, without any prior third-party claim.
The decision significantly increases long-tail liability exposure across the construction supply chain.
Modern communications and contract formation
The increasing informality of business communications was highlighted in Jaevee Homes v Fincham, where the court held that a binding contract had been formed through WhatsApp messages.
The essential terms were agreed in writing, and any missing terms could be implied. The apparent informality of the medium did not undermine the legal effect.
For construction professionals, the warning is clear: all communications are relevant and even something considered to be informal can have lasting contractual consequences.
Adjudication enforcement and procedural integrity
Finally, the courts reaffirmed their robust approach to enforcing adjudicators’ decisions, while making clear that procedural integrity matters. In RNJM Ltd v Purpose Social Homes Ltd, enforcement was refused where the referring party had misrepresented matters to secure the appointment of a different adjudicator.
The case is a reminder that while adjudication is designed to be quick and decisive, attempts to manipulate the process can be fatal.
In Muzzy Ltd v Davis Construction (South East) Ltd [2025] EWHC 2258 (TCC), minor procedural irregularities were also held insufficient to undermine enforcement in the absence of material unfairness.
Further guidance was provided in Clegg Food Projects Ltd v Prestige Car Direct Properties Ltd [2025] EWHC 2173 (TCC), where the court confirmed that adjudicators may adopt global valuations and reach figures between the parties’ positions, without inviting submissions at every intermediate step.
Conclusion
The construction law decisions of 2025 reflect a judiciary that is keenly aware of the sector’s commercial realities. The courts continue to support adjudication, uphold cash flow protections and address building safety concerns, while insisting on fairness, transparency and proportionality.
How CCC can help
CCC supports contractors, employers and consultants in navigating adjudication and enforcement issues informed by the latest TCC authority. We assist clients at all stages of the dispute lifecycle, including analysis and advice on contracts to avoid significant from the outset, early assessments of potential commercial issues, strategic assistance to try and avoid disputes from escalating, and where that is not possible adopting the appropriate methods to help resolve any dispute that arises.
By combining up-to-date legal analysis with a detailed understanding of project records and commercial realities, CCC helps clients reduce risk, strengthen adjudication positions and resolve disputes efficiently and proportionately.
