Serial adjudications turn on how the dispute is framed.
Complex projects can generate more than one adjudication. That is not unusual. On large or distressed projects, disputes may develop in stages: an interim payment dispute, followed by a notified-sum adjudication, followed by a true value adjudication, followed by an extension of time claim, followed by loss and expense, defects, final account or contra-charge issues. The fact that the same project gives rise to multiple adjudications does not, of itself, create a jurisdictional problem.
The difficulty arises when a later adjudication asks the second adjudicator to decide the same or substantially the same dispute as an earlier adjudicator. The commercial issue is not simply whether the referring party has a good argument. It is whether that argument is being advanced through the correct dispute, at the correct time, and in a form that respects what has already been decided.
The dispute in Sudlows Ltd v Global Switch Estates 1 Ltd arose from a complex data centre project and concerned the fifth and sixth adjudications between the parties. The issues included extension of time, responsibility for ductwork and cabling matters, and whether findings made in an earlier adjudication were binding in a later adjudication. That made the case commercially important because it showed how serial adjudication can turn not only on the underlying merits, but on the precise boundary between a new dispute and an attempt to reopen one already decided.
Why the case matters
The significance of Sudlows v Global Switch lies in the discipline it imposes on serial adjudications. Construction adjudication is designed to produce temporarily binding decisions quickly. That temporary finality would be undermined if a party could simply repackage the same dispute and ask a later adjudicator to reach a different answer. At the same time, adjudication would become too restrictive if parties were prevented from bringing genuinely new disputes simply because they arose from the same project history.
The correct focus is therefore not a mechanical comparison of factual background. The more important questions are what the earlier adjudicator actually decided, what the later adjudicator is being asked to decide, and whether the later decision would be fundamentally inconsistent with the earlier decision. That is a practical test, but it is also a demanding one. It requires the party commencing the later adjudication to understand precisely what has already been determined and what remains open.
This matters for Legalbuild clients because live construction disputes rarely develop in a clean sequence. Delay, disruption, payment, defects and valuation issues often overlap. A contractor may first pursue an extension of time for one period, then a later period of delay, then loss and expense, then final account valuation. Each referral may be legitimate, but only if it is framed so that the adjudicator is not being invited to re-decide something already determined.
Serial adjudication requires a roadmap
The practical lesson from Sudlows v Global Switch is that serial adjudication requires a roadmap. Before starting a further adjudication, the contractor should identify what has already been referred, what was actually decided, what findings were essential to that decision, and what issues remain undecided. That analysis should be carried out before the notice of adjudication is served, because the notice defines the jurisdictional terrain. This is especially important where the later adjudication concerns delay or loss and expense. Delay disputes often involve the same events over different periods, or the same factual background applied to different contractual consequences. A previous adjudication may have decided responsibility for a relevant event, but not the full period of delay, the full financial consequence, the final account effect or the valuation of related loss. Conversely, if the key responsibility issue has already been decided, a later adjudication that attempts to reopen that issue may be vulnerable.
The point is not that contractors should avoid serial adjudications. On complex projects, serial adjudication may be necessary. The point is that each adjudication should be designed with the previous decisions in view. The dispute referred should be capable of standing as a distinct dispute, or should proceed on the basis of what has already been decided rather than trying to relitigate it.
The danger of reactive adjudication
Contractors often move to adjudication when the commercial position has deteriorated: payment has stopped, delay has crystallised, the final account has stalled, or the employer is advancing contra charges. In that environment, there is a temptation to refer the immediate dispute without fully mapping the procedural history. That is risky where there have already been adjudications between the parties.
A reactive referral can create avoidable jurisdictional arguments. The responding party may say that the dispute is the same or substantially the same as a previous dispute. It may argue that the adjudicator has no jurisdiction, that the claimant is attempting to reopen a decided issue, or that enforcement should be resisted. Even if the referring party ultimately succeeds, the adjudication may become distracted by jurisdiction rather than entitlement. That is commercially inefficient and can weaken leverage. The better approach is to control the framing from the outset. The referral should explain why the dispute is properly before the adjudicator, how it relates to any earlier adjudication, and why it does not impermissibly reopen a decided issue. Where the later adjudication relies on a prior finding, that should be made clear. Where it concerns a new period, new relief, new valuation or new contractual consequence, the distinction should be identified with precision.
Why issue definition matters
Issue definition is central to adjudication strategy because jurisdiction is conferred by the dispute referred. A party that defines the dispute too broadly may create unnecessary overlap with earlier adjudications. A party that defines it too narrowly may fail to recover the relief it needs. A party that ignores previous decisions may invite a jurisdictional challenge that could have been avoided.
For Legalbuild clients, this is where legal analysis and project evidence must operate together. The legal question is whether the later dispute is the same or substantially the same as a dispute already decided. The evidential question is whether the documents show a distinct period, event, valuation, loss, payment cycle or relief. The commercial question is whether the adjudication will preserve leverage or create another procedural fight. Those questions should be answered before adjudication begins. They should not be improvised after a jurisdictional objection has been raised.
The practical message for contractors
Before commencing a further adjudication, contractors should review the adjudication history with care. The analysis should identify the notice, referral, decision, operative findings and relief granted in each earlier adjudication. It should then test the proposed new dispute against that history. If the new adjudication concerns a different period, a different payment cycle, a different head of loss or a different contractual consequence, the referral should explain that distinction clearly. If the new adjudication depends on a finding already made, it should adopt that finding rather than reopen it.
This discipline is particularly important on long-running projects where disputes evolve over time. Delay, disruption, valuation and final account issues can all develop in stages. Without a clear adjudication roadmap, the parties may spend time arguing about jurisdiction when they should be addressing entitlement, causation and value. A contractor with a controlled roadmap is better placed to decide whether to adjudicate now, what dispute to refer, what relief to seek and what prior findings must be respected. A contractor without that roadmap risks turning the adjudication process into a procedural sequence that is reactive, expensive and strategically uncertain.
Legalbuild’s view
For Legalbuild, Sudlows v Global Switch reinforces that adjudication is not only about speed. It is about structure. Fast dispute resolution only works commercially where the dispute is defined with precision and the evidential route is already organised. The case also reinforces the value of building the legal and evidential position in the background before formal escalation becomes necessary. Serial adjudications are often the result of complex projects, but they should not be unmanaged. Each adjudication should have a clear purpose within the wider recovery strategy: what is being decided, what has already been decided, what remains open, and how the decision will affect leverage on the next issue. The strongest contractors do not treat adjudication as a series of isolated fights. They treat it as part of a wider commercial recovery sequence. That means mapping notices, payment cycles, delay periods, valuation issues, prior adjudication decisions and final account strategy together. Where that structure exists, adjudication can preserve momentum. Where it does not, jurisdiction and enforcement can become the battleground instead of entitlement itself. Sudlows v Global Switch is therefore a useful reminder that the way a dispute is framed can be as important as the merits of the dispute. In serial adjudication, precision is not legal neatness. It is commercial protection.
Case reference: Sudlows Ltd v Global Switch Estates 1 Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 813.
