Premier Modular v Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust (2026)

Neutral citation: Premier Modular Ltd v Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust [2026] EWHC 1404 (TCC)

Date: 10 June 2026

NEC contract topics: Accepted Programme, compensation events, notifications

Form of contract: NEC4 Engineering and Construction Contract main option A

Main areas of law: adjudication enforcement, natural justice in adjudication, HGCRA 1996

Background and the Dispute

Premier Modular Ltd (PML) contracted with Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust under NEC4 Engineering and Construction Contract Option A for the design and construction of a new barn theatre at Maidstone Hospital. The original completion date was 31 January 2024.

The dispute centred on the permanent mains water supply. Premier said that it required the water supply by 30 October 2023 for testing and commissioning, but that the Trust did not provide it until 20 February 2024. Premier claimed that this caused critical delay and additional cost.

Before the adjudicator, PML put its case on the basis that the late water supply gave rise to a compensation event under NEC clause 60.1, relying on sub-clauses 60.1(1), 60.1(14) and 60.1(18). The Trust denied that any compensation event had arisen and also argued that any claim was time-barred under clause 61.3 because the event had not been notified within eight weeks.

A critical feature of the case was that both parties accepted that the only Accepted Programme was the programme included in the contract documents. No later programme had been formally accepted by the Project Manager under the clause 31 machinery.

The adjudicator nevertheless concluded that a later programme revision had become the Accepted Programme, despite the fact that the contractual acceptance procedures had not been followed. He then found that the Trust had failed to provide the water main by the date shown on that later programme and that this gave rise to a compensation event under NEC clause 60.1(3) which states:

“The Client does not provide something which it is to provide by the date shown on the Accepted Programme.”

On that basis, the adjudicator awarded Premier more than £1.65 million. Premier then sought to enforce the decision by summary judgment.

The Court’s ruling

The Court refused enforcement. Adrian Williamson KC held that the adjudicator had acted in breach of natural justice by deciding the case on a basis that had not been argued by either party and had not been properly put to them for submissions.

The judge’s central criticism was clear:

“the Adjudicator went off on a ‘frolic’ by, in effect, inventing a case for PML which he considered to be superior to that which they actually advanced.”

In reaching that conclusion, the Court applied the well-established enforcement principles in a number of authorities.^[i]  Those authorities emphasise that adjudicators’ decisions are usually enforced, and natural justice challenges succeed only in rare cases. This, however, was one of those rare cases.

NEC contract learning points and implications for the construction industry

1. Clause 60.1(3) depends on the Accepted Programme

Clause 60.1(3) only applies if the Client fails to provide something by the date shown on the Accepted Programme. Here, the Accepted Programme in the contract did not show a date by which the Trust had to provide permanent water. Later programmes did, but they had never been accepted by the Project Manager. The adjudicator overcame that problem by treating a later revision as accepted. The Court held that he could not do that without first giving the parties the opportunity to address the point.

A party seeking to rely on clause 60.1(3) must be able to anchor the alleged obligation to a date shown on a programme that has been accepted.

2. Poor programme administration creates real legal risk

The case is also a reminder that NEC programme provisions are not only about the management of time. If revised programmes are submitted but never formally accepted or rejected, the parties may later find themselves arguing entitlement against an outdated contractual baseline. This matters not only for clause 60.1(3), but also for assessment of delay under clause 63.5, which measures delay by reference to planned Completion shown on the Accepted Programme current at the dividing date.

3. An adjudicator may interpret the contract, but must still be fair

The Court accepted that the adjudicator had jurisdiction over the dispute. The problem was not that clause 60.1(3) was outside the scope of the adjudication. The problem was fairness although the adjudicator does not have to choose mechanically between the parties’ submissions.^[ii]  But if the adjudicator wants to decide the case on a different factual or legal basis, the parties must have a fair opportunity to comment. That did not happen here. Both sides had expressly said that the later programme was not an Accepted Programme, yet the adjudicator treated it as one and made that conclusion the foundation of his decision.

4. The notice point remains important

The Trust also argued that Premier’s claim was barred by clause 61.3 because no valid compensation event notice had been given within eight weeks. The Court did not treat that as a natural justice breach. The adjudicator had addressed the notice issue, even if he may have misunderstood parts of the argument. So the case should not be read as resolving the substantive notice question. The safer NEC practice remains to give a clear and express compensation event notice in time, rather than relying on early warnings or general correspondence.

Practical NEC lessons

For NEC users, the decision offers some practical points:

• ensure any Client obligation said to trigger clause 60.1(3) appears on an Accepted Programme,
• do not assume that a later working programme will carry contractual weight unless it has been properly accepted,
• administer programme submissions and responses strictly under clause 31,
• serve express compensation event notices within clause 61.3 wherever possible and
• in adjudication, ensure that any new contractual route identified by the adjudicator is fully ventilated before a decision is made.

Conclusion

This case is an important NEC contract adjudication enforcement decision. Its practical message is that under NEC4 the Accepted Programme is central to compensation event entitlement, especially under clause 60.1(3), and adjudicators must not repair a party’s case by devising a different NEC argument without hearing both sides on it first. For anyone operating NEC contracts, programme discipline and clear notices remain essential.

^[i] Cantillon Ltd v Urvasco Ltd [2008] EWHC 282 (TCC); Roe Brickwork Ltd v Wates Construction Ltd [2013] EWHC 3417 (TCC); Carillion Construction Ltd v Devonport Royal Dockyard Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 1358.

^[ii] Roe Brickwork Ltd v Wates Construction Ltd [2013] EWHC 3417 (TCC)