RICS Adjudication Procedure

Adjudication has become a cornerstone of dispute resolution in the UK construction industry. Designed to provide a swift and pragmatic answer to disputes arising during construction projects, it enables parties to resolve issues without waiting for the end of a project or engaging in protracted litigation.

Within this framework, RICS adjudication plays a significant role. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) operates one of the most widely used adjudication schemes in the UK, regularly appointing adjudicators across a broad range of construction and property-related disputes. Its scheme is recognised for combining procedural efficiency with technical expertise, particularly in valuation-led and commercially complex cases.

The growing reliance on adjudication reflects the realities of modern construction projects. Cash flow pressures, tight programmes, and complex contractual relationships mean disputes cannot simply be “parked” until completion. Statutory adjudication addresses this by allowing a party to refer a dispute at any time, with a decision reached quickly and enforced if necessary through the courts.

This guide provides a comprehensive overview of RICS adjudication: how it works, when it is used, and the legal principles that govern it. It is intended for contractors, subcontractors, employers, consultants, and in-house teams seeking a clear understanding of the process and the risks and opportunities it presents, before a dispute escalates further. 

Summary

This article covers:

• What RICS adjudication is and how it operates within the UK statutory adjudication framework
• When RICS adjudication can be used, including the “anytime” nature of construction disputes
• Who can apply for adjudication, and whether a contractual adjudication clause is required
• How the RICS adjudication process works, from notice to enforceable decision
• The key advantages, limitations, costs, and enforcement considerations associated with RICS adjudication

What is RICS Adjudication?

RICS adjudication is a form of adjudication administered under the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors’ adjudication scheme. It provides a structured process through which an independent adjudicator is appointed to determine a construction or property-related dispute within a short, fixed timeframe.

In practical terms, RICS adjudication is most commonly used as the appointing body mechanism. Where a dispute arises, a party may ask RICS to nominate a suitably qualified adjudicator from its panel. That adjudicator then conducts the adjudication in accordance with the Construction Act or the relevant contractual adjudication provisions.

Although RICS is not the only adjudicator-nominating body in the UK, it is one of the most frequently used. Its panel includes legally qualified adjudicators as well as construction professionals such as surveyors, engineers, and project managers, making it particularly well-suited to disputes involving valuation, measurement, delay, and technical assessment.

Relationship to the Construction Act

RICS adjudication sits firmly within the statutory framework established by the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, as amended (commonly referred to as the Construction Act).

Under the Act, parties to a construction contract have a statutory right to refer a dispute to adjudication at any time. If the contract does not contain compliant adjudication provisions, the Scheme for Construction Contracts applies by default. In either case, RICS can be used as the nominating body to appoint the adjudicator.

It is important to note that RICS does not replace the statutory regime. Instead, it supports it by providing:

• An established nomination procedure
• A recognised adjudication framework
• Access to experienced adjudicators familiar with construction law and practice.

Statutory and Contractual Adjudication Under RICS Rules

RICS adjudication may arise in two distinct ways:

• Statutory adjudication, where the right to adjudicate is implied by the Construction Act, regardless of whether the contract expressly refers to adjudication or RICS.
• Contractual adjudication, where the parties have expressly agreed in their contract to adjudicate disputes under RICS adjudication rules, even where the Construction Act may not apply.

This distinction matters. Statutory adjudication is governed by strict legal requirements, particularly around jurisdiction, timing, and procedural fairness. Contractual adjudication offers greater flexibility but depends entirely on the wording of the contract.

In both cases, however, the core principle remains the same: the adjudicator’s decision is temporarily binding, meaning it must be complied with unless and until it is overturned by litigation or arbitration.

When is RICS Adjudication Used?

RICS adjudication is most commonly used where a dispute arises during the course of a construction project and requires a swift, enforceable decision. Its primary purpose is to prevent disputes from stalling progress or undermining cash flow while works are ongoing.

As adjudication is available “at any time”, it can be deployed early in a dispute, often before positions have fully hardened or relationships have broken down irretrievably. This makes it a particularly attractive option in live projects where commercial certainty is essential.

Typical Disputes Referred to RICS Adjudication

RICS adjudication is well-suited to a wide range of construction and property disputes, including:

• Payment disputes, such as non-payment, pay less notices, or final account disagreements
• Valuation disputes, including interim valuations, variations, and measurement issues
• Delay and extension of time claims, particularly where time and money are closely linked
• Loss and expense claims arising from disruption or change
• Defect disputes, including questions of responsibility and remedial cost
• Professional services disputes, involving consultants, surveyors, or project managers

Given the technical nature of many of these issues, parties often favour RICS adjudication due to the availability of adjudicators with specialist construction and commercial expertise.

Why Parties Choose Adjudication Over Other Dispute Resolution Methods

Adjudication is not the only method available for resolving construction disputes, but it is frequently preferred where speed and enforceability are priorities.

Compared with litigation or arbitration, adjudication offers:

• A significantly shorter timetable
• A more focused and document-driven process
• A decision that can be enforced quickly through the courts.

Unlike mediation, adjudication results in a binding decision rather than a negotiated outcome. This makes it particularly useful where parties are entrenched or where one party requires a clear determination in order to unlock payment or move a project forward.

Expert determination, while sometimes appropriate for narrow technical issues, lacks the statutory enforcement mechanisms available to adjudication and may offer limited procedural safeguards.

The “Anytime” Nature of Statutory Adjudication

One of the defining features of statutory adjudication is its availability at any stage of a project. There is no requirement to wait for practical completion or final account agreement before referring to a dispute.

This “anytime” right can be strategically important. It allows parties to address discrete issues as they arise, rather than allowing multiple disputes to accumulate. However, it also creates risk: poorly timed or ill-prepared adjudications can escalate conflict and increase costs if not managed carefully.

For that reason, early legal advice is often critical in assessing whether adjudication is the right step, and, if so, how best to deploy it.

Who Can Apply for RICS Adjudication?

The right to refer a dispute to adjudication is broad and reflects the Construction Act’s aim of ensuring access to swift dispute resolution across the construction supply chain.

In practice, RICS adjudication is used by a wide range of parties involved in construction and property projects.

Parties Entitled to Apply

Depending on the nature of the contract and the dispute, the following parties may refer a matter to RICS adjudication:

• Contractors and subcontractors, including those operating under standard form contracts
• Employers and developers, both commercial and public sectors
• Consultants and professional advisers, such as architects, engineers, and surveyors
• Specialist trades and suppliers, whose agreement falls within the definition of a construction contract

The key consideration is whether the underlying agreement qualifies as a construction contract under the Construction Act, or whether the contract otherwise provides for adjudication.

Contractual Requirements and Prerequisites

In statutory adjudication, a party does not need an express adjudication clause to refer to a dispute. If the contract is silent or includes non-compliant adjudication provisions, the Scheme for Construction Contracts will apply automatically, preserving the right to adjudicate.

In contractual adjudication, the position depends entirely on the wording of the agreement. Some contracts extend adjudication rights beyond the scope of the Construction Act, including to:

• Non-construction contracts
• Professional appointments
• Disputes arising after termination.

Understanding whether adjudication is available, and on what terms, is a critical first step. Jurisdictional challenges frequently arise where parties misunderstand the contractual or statutory basis for the adjudication.

What if the Contract Does Not Name RICS?

A contract does not need to expressly refer to RICS for RICS adjudication to be used.

Where the contract allows adjudication but does not specify an adjudicator nominating body, or where the Scheme for Construction Contracts applies, a party may apply to RICS to nominate an adjudicator. RICS will then appoint an adjudicator in accordance with its published procedures.

This flexibility is one reason RICS is so commonly used. Even where contracts are silent or poorly drafted, RICS can provide a reliable route to appointment without delaying the process.

However, care is required. Errors at this stage, such as applying to the wrong nominating body or mischaracterising the dispute, can undermine the adjudicator’s jurisdiction and expose the decision to challenge.

Overview of the RICS Adjudication Procedure

The RICS adjudication procedure is designed to deliver a fast and decisive outcome while maintaining procedural fairness. Although individual adjudications vary depending on the nature of the dispute and the adjudicator’s approach, the process follows a well-established structure.

At a high level, adjudication under the RICS scheme is front-loaded and time-critical. Parties are required to define the dispute clearly at the outset and support their positions with evidence within a compressed timetable.

The Core Timetable

In statutory adjudication, the adjudicator is required to decide within 28 days of receiving the Referral Notice. This period can be extended:

• By up to 14 days with the referring party’s consent
• For any length of time, if both parties agree.

While 28 days is the statutory default, complex disputes often run slightly longer in practice, particularly where extensions are agreed to ensure procedural fairness.

Key Procedural Stages

Although the detail is addressed in the next section, the adjudication process typically involves:

• Service of a Notice of Adjudication, identifying the dispute and relief sought
• Appointment of the adjudicator by RICS
• Submission of the Referral Notice, setting out the referring party’s full case
• A response from the responding party, and sometimes a Reply
• Limited further submissions, meetings, or site visits if required
• Delivery of the adjudicator’s decision.

Each stage is governed by tight deadlines, and failure to comply can have serious consequences for a party’s ability to present its case.

Evidence and Procedure

Adjudication is primarily a documents-based process. Witness statements, expert reports, programmes, valuations, and contemporaneous records often play a central role. Oral hearings are rare, but adjudicators may hold short meetings or calls to clarify issues, conduct site visits, or request additional submissions where necessary.

Importantly, adjudicators have broad procedural discretion but must still act in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Parties must be given a fair opportunity to present their cases and respond to opposing arguments.

Binding But Interim Nature

The adjudicator’s decision is binding on an interim basis. This means it must be complied with immediately, even if one party disagrees with the outcome.

The decision can later be challenged through litigation or arbitration, but in the meantime, it is enforceable, often swiftly, through the Technology and Construction Court. This feature underpins adjudication’s effectiveness as a cash flow and dispute management tool.

Step-by-Step Breakdown of the RICS Adjudication Process

While the RICS adjudication procedure is designed to be swift, it is also highly structured. Each stage plays a critical role in defining the adjudicator’s jurisdiction, shaping the issues to be decided, and ultimately influencing the outcome.

Errors made early in the process, particularly in relation to scope, timing, or appointment, can be difficult, if not impossible, to correct later. For that reason, careful preparation at each step is essential.

1. Notice of Adjudication

The adjudication process begins with the service of a Notice of Adjudication by the referring party.

This document sets the legal foundation for the entire adjudication. It must clearly identify the parties to the dispute; the contract relied upon; the nature and scope of the dispute; and the redress sought.

The dispute referred to must already have crystallised. Attempting to include issues that have not previously been raised or disputed can lead to jurisdictional challenges and, in some cases, invalidate the adjudication altogether.

Common drafting mistakes include:

• Defining the dispute too broadly or ambiguously
• Referring to multiple unrelated disputes in a single notice
• Misidentifying the contractual basis for adjudication
• Seeking remedies outside the adjudicator’s jurisdiction.

Given the importance of the Notice of Adjudication, it is often the stage at which early legal input provides the greatest strategic value.

2. Appointment of the Adjudicator via RICS

Once the Notice of Adjudication has been served, an application is made to RICS to nominate an adjudicator.

RICS will appoint an adjudicator from its panel, typically within a short timeframe. The appointed adjudicator must confirm their availability to meet the statutory timetable; their independence and impartiality; and that they have no conflicts of interest.

The cost of nomination and the adjudicator’s fees are usually addressed at this stage. While RICS appoints the adjudicator, it does not control how the adjudication is conducted once the appointment is made.

Although parties cannot usually choose a specific individual, the way in which the dispute is framed can influence the type of adjudicator appointed, for example, a legally qualified adjudicator versus a technical specialist. This is another area where strategic consideration is important.

3. The Referral Notice

The Referral Notice is the most substantial document in the adjudication. It must be served within seven days of the Notice of Adjudication and must contain the referring party’s full case.

Typically, the Referral Notice will include:

• A detailed narrative of the dispute
• Legal and contractual arguments
• The relief sought
• A comprehensive package of supporting documents.

As adjudication operates on a compressed timetable, there is a limited opportunity to introduce new material later. A poorly prepared Referral Notice can significantly weaken a party’s position from the outset.

Effective referrals are focused, clearly structured, and supported by contemporaneous evidence rather than volume alone.

4. The Responding Party’s Case

The responding party is usually required to submit its Response within a short timeframe set by the adjudicator.

The Response should:

• Address jurisdictional issues at the earliest opportunity
• Respond clearly to the allegations made in the Referral
• Set out any defences, counterclaims, or alternative valuations relied upon.

Respondents must balance speed with accuracy. While adjudication does not allow the same level of forensic analysis as litigation, failing to engage properly with the issues can leave an adjudicator with little choice but to prefer the referring party’s case.

In some adjudications, a Reply from the referring party and a Rejoinder from the respondent may be permitted, but this depends on the adjudicator’s directions and the available time.

5. Meetings, Site Visits, And Additional Submissions

Although adjudication is primarily document-based, adjudicators have discretion to request meetings or procedural calls, site visits, or further written submissions on specific points.

These steps are usually taken where clarification is required, rather than to reopen the case. Parties should be prepared to respond quickly and proportionately to such requests.

Importantly, adjudicators must ensure procedural fairness. If one party is allowed to make further submissions, the other must generally be allowed to respond.

6. The Adjudicator’s Decision

The adjudicator must issue a written decision within the statutory timeframe, unless an extension has been agreed.

The decision will:

• Address the issues referred to in the Notice of Adjudication
• Set out the adjudicator’s reasoning
• Determine any sums payable or actions required.

The decision is binding on an interim basis and must be complied with immediately. Adjudicators do not have the power to finally determine disputes, but their decisions carry real commercial weight and are routinely enforced by the courts.

Challenges are possible, but only on limited grounds, such as a lack of jurisdiction or a breach of natural justice. Disagreement with the merits of the decision is not enough.

Key Legal Principles Governing RICS Adjudication

Although adjudication is intended to be a swift and pragmatic dispute resolution process, it is underpinned by well-established legal principles. Understanding these principles is essential, as failure to comply with them can render an adjudicator’s decision unenforceable.

Statutory Framework Under The Construction Act

RICS adjudication operates within the statutory framework of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, as amended.

The Act provides parties to a construction contract with:

• A right to refer a dispute to adjudication at any time
• A defined timetable for the adjudication process
• A mechanism for enforcing adjudicators’ decisions.

Where a contract does not contain compliant adjudication provisions, the Scheme for Construction Contracts applies by default. This ensures that the statutory right to adjudicate cannot be excluded by poor drafting or omission.

Jurisdiction and Scope of the Dispute

One of the most common areas of challenge in adjudication relates to jurisdiction.

An adjudicator’s jurisdiction is defined by the Notice of Adjudication, the underlying contract, and the dispute that has crystallised between the parties.

If an adjudicator decides issues that fall outside the scope of the dispute referred, or outside the contractual or statutory basis for adjudication, their decision may be vulnerable to challenge.

Jurisdictional objections must usually be raised promptly. Failing to do so may result in a party being deemed to have accepted the adjudicator’s jurisdiction, even if defects existed.

Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness

Adjudicators are required to act in accordance with the principles of natural justice. In practice, this means ensuring that:

• Both parties have a fair opportunity to present their cases
• Neither party is taken by surprise by new arguments or evidence
• The adjudicator does not rely on material not disclosed to the parties.

While adjudication is necessarily robust and fast-moving, it must still be procedurally fair. A material breach of natural justice, particularly one that affects the outcome, may justify refusing enforcement of the decision.

However, the courts have consistently shown a high tolerance for procedural imperfections in adjudication, provided the core requirements of fairness are met.

Limits of the Adjudicator’s Powers

Adjudicators have wide procedural discretion, but their powers are not unlimited.

For example, adjudicators:

• Cannot finally determine disputes
• Cannot rewrite contracts
• Must act within the authority granted by the parties’ agreement and the Construction Act.

Errors of law or fact do not, by themselves, invalidate a decision. This reflects the courts’ emphasis on enforcing adjudicators’ decisions to preserve the integrity of the adjudication regime.

Common Legal Pitfalls Affecting Enforceability

In practice, adjudication decisions are most commonly challenged based on:

• A lack of jurisdiction
• Failure to comply with the Construction Act or Scheme
• A breach of natural justice
• Ambiguity in the decision itself.

Many of these risks can be mitigated through careful preparation, clear drafting, and early legal advice, particularly at the Notice of Adjudication and Referral stages.

Timescales and Flexibility

One of the defining features of RICS adjudication is the speed with which disputes can be resolved. The process is deliberately time-limited, reflecting adjudication’s role as a mechanism for maintaining momentum and cash flow on construction projects.

However, while the statutory timetable is strict, there is also a degree of flexibility built into the process.

The Statutory 28-Day Period

Under the Construction Act, an adjudicator is required to decide within 28 days of receiving the Referral Notice.

This period begins once the Referral has been served, not when the Notice of Adjudication is issued. Given the volume of material often involved, this makes the early stages of adjudication particularly intense.

Extensions of Time

The statutory timetable can be extended in two ways:

• By up to 14 days with the consent of the referring party alone; or
• For any length of time with the agreement of both parties.

Extensions are commonly agreed in more complex disputes, particularly where multiple issues are in play or where further submissions are required to ensure procedural fairness.

That said, extensions should be approached carefully. While additional time can improve the quality of decision-making, it may also dilute one of adjudication’s key advantages: speed.

Practical Realities in Complex Disputes

In straightforward payment or valuation disputes, decisions are often issued within the original 28-day period.

More complex adjudications, such as those involving delay analysis, defects, or substantial evidential bundles, may require limited extensions to allow the adjudicator to properly consider the issues. Even then, the overall duration is usually measured in weeks rather than months.

Parties should also be aware that the compressed timetable places a premium on preparation. Attempting to build a case after adjudication has commenced is rarely effective and can increase both risk and cost.

Managing Expectations

While adjudication is fast, it is not instantaneous. Internal approval processes, evidence gathering, and coordination between legal and commercial teams all take time.

Understanding the timetable at the outset allows parties to plan resources realistically and avoid procedural missteps that could undermine their position later in the process.

Costs of RICS Adjudication

While RICS adjudication is generally more cost-effective than litigation or arbitration, it is not a cost-free process. Understanding the likely cost exposure at an early stage is essential for managing risk and ensuring proportionality.

Adjudicator’s Fees and RICS Nomination Costs

The primary direct cost of RICS adjudication is the adjudicator’s fee. This is usually charged on an hourly or daily basis and will vary depending on:

• The complexity of the dispute
• The volume of material involved
• The time required to reach a decision.

In addition, RICS charges a nomination fee for appointing the adjudicator. This is typically modest when compared to the overall cost of the adjudication, but should still be factored into budgeting.

Adjudicators often require payment on account at the outset, particularly in higher-value or complex disputes.

Allocation of Adjudication Costs

Adjudicators have the power to allocate their own fees and expenses between the parties. Common approaches include either equal apportionment between the parties or allocation based on the outcome of the adjudication.

However, adjudicators do not usually have the power to award one party’s legal or professional costs against the other, unless the contract expressly provides otherwise. Each party will generally bear its own legal and expert costs, regardless of the outcome.

Legal and Professional Costs

In addition to adjudicator fees, parties should consider:

• Legal costs for advice, drafting, and strategy
• Expert or programming costs in delay or defects disputes
• Internal management time and resources.

As adjudication timetables are compressed, legal and professional costs can escalate quickly if preparation is left too late or if issues are poorly defined at the outset.

Budgeting and Proportionality

A key advantage of adjudication is proportionality. It is intended to deliver a commercially sensible outcome, not to replicate the depth of litigation.

Parties should therefore focus on the issues that truly matter, avoid unnecessary evidential volume, and assess whether the value of the dispute justifies the likely costs.

Early legal advice can be instrumental in shaping a proportionate strategy and avoiding expenditure that adds little to the prospects of success.

Enforcement of RICS Adjudication Decisions

One of the key strengths of adjudication is that decisions are not merely advisory. An adjudicator’s decision is intended to be complied with immediately, and the courts have consistently shown strong support for enforcing adjudication awards.

Enforcing Decisions Through the Technology and Construction Court

If a party fails to comply with an adjudicator’s decision, the successful party may apply to the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) for summary enforcement.

Enforcement proceedings are typically dealt with quickly. The court’s role is not to reconsider the merits of the dispute, but to determine whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction and whether the process complied with basic principles of fairness.

Where those requirements are met, the court will usually enforce the decision and may order payment of the adjudicated sum, interest, and costs of the enforcement proceedings.

This rapid enforcement mechanism is central to adjudication’s effectiveness as a cash flow tool.

Grounds For Resisting Enforcement

Although the courts are robustly pro-enforcement, there are limited circumstances in which enforcement may be resisted. Common grounds include:

• Lack of jurisdiction, for example, where:
  • No qualifying construction contract existed.
  • The dispute referred to had not crystallised.
  • The adjudicator decided matters outside the scope of the referral.
• Breach of natural justice, such as:
  • Failure to allow a party a fair opportunity to respond.
  • Reliance on material not disclosed to the parties.
• Material ambiguity in the adjudicator’s decision makes it unclear how it should be implemented.

Importantly, disagreement with the adjudicator’s reasoning or conclusions is not a valid basis for resisting enforcement.

Practical Realities of Enforcement

In practice, most adjudication decisions are complied with voluntarily. The prospect of swift court enforcement, combined with the risk of adverse costs, often encourages payment.

Where enforcement proceedings are necessary, they tend to move far more quickly than substantive litigation. However, enforcement is not automatic, and poorly managed adjudications can still be vulnerable to challenge.

This underlines the importance of getting the fundamentals right from the outset, particularly jurisdiction, scope, and procedural fairness.

Relationship with Final Determination

Adjudication decisions are interim and binding. This means they remain enforceable unless and until the dispute is finally determined by litigation or arbitration.

In many cases, adjudication resolves the dispute in practical terms, with no further action taken. In others, it acts as a stepping stone, clarifying positions and narrowing issues for later proceedings.

Advantages and Limitations of RICS Adjudication

RICS adjudication offers clear benefits, but it is not suitable for every dispute. Understanding both its strengths and its limitations allows parties to make informed decisions about whether adjudication is the most appropriate route.

Advantages

Speed and Commercial Certainty

One of the most significant advantages of adjudication is speed. Disputes can be resolved within weeks rather than months or years, providing early commercial certainty and helping to maintain cash flow on live projects.

Cost-Effectiveness

Compared with litigation or arbitration, adjudication is generally more cost-effective. The absence of lengthy procedural stages and the limited scope for cost recovery encourage proportionality and focused submissions.

Specialist Decision Makers

RICS adjudicators are typically experienced construction professionals or legally qualified specialists with sector-specific expertise. This makes adjudication particularly well-suited to disputes involving valuation, delay, or technical assessment.

Interim Binding Decisions

The requirement to comply with an adjudicator’s decision immediately gives adjudication real commercial impact. Even though decisions are interim, they are enforceable and often resolve disputes in practice.

Limitations

Compressed Timetable

The speed of adjudication can also be a disadvantage. The tight timetable limits the scope for detailed investigation and may disadvantage parties who are unprepared or lack access to key evidence.

Risk of Rough Justice

Adjudication is not designed to deliver perfect justice. Decisions may be robust and pragmatic rather than forensic, and errors of fact or law are not uncommon. The courts accept this as a necessary trade-off for speed.

Challenges With Complex or Multi-Issue Disputes

Highly complex disputes involving multiple parties, extensive expert evidence, or novel legal issues may be difficult to resolve fairly within the adjudication framework. In such cases, litigation or arbitration may ultimately be more appropriate.

Limited Cost Recovery

The inability to recover legal and professional costs in most adjudications means that even a successful party may incur significant unrecoverable expenditure.

RICS Summary Adjudication Procedure

In addition to standard adjudication, RICS also offers a Summary Adjudication Procedure. This is a streamlined form of adjudication intended to deal with straightforward disputes where a full evidential process would be disproportionate.

What is Summary Adjudication?

Summary adjudication is designed to resolve disputes on a shortened timetable, often based on limited submissions and a narrow set of issues. It is not a separate legal right under the Construction Act, but a procedural option available under the RICS adjudication framework where appropriate.

The emphasis is on speed and efficiency, with the adjudicator focusing on the key points necessary to reach a decision.

When is Summary Adjudication Appropriate?

Summary adjudication is most suitable where:

• The dispute is narrow in scope.
• The factual background is largely agreed upon.
• The issues turn on discrete points of valuation, payment, or contractual interpretation.

Typical examples include simple payment disputes, valuation corrections, or issues that can be resolved primarily by reference to contractual provisions and limited documentary evidence.

It is less suitable for disputes involving:

• Complex delay analysis
• Extensive defects evidence
• Multiple interrelated issues.

Comparison With Standard Adjudication

The key differences between summary adjudication and standard adjudication include:

• Fewer submissions and supporting documents
• Reduced procedural steps
• A more condensed timetable.

While this can deliver cost and time savings, it also increases the risk of oversimplification. Parties must be confident that their dispute can be fairly determined without the fuller process afforded by standard adjudication.

Strategic Considerations

Summary adjudication should be approached with care. Although attractive from a cost and speed perspective, it may not provide sufficient opportunity to present complex arguments or evidence.

Early assessment of suitability and agreement on procedure, where possible, can help avoid disputes over process and ensure the adjudication remains fair and enforceable.

How to Prepare Effectively for RICS Adjudication

Successful adjudication is rarely improvised. Given the speed and procedural intensity of the process, preparation before a dispute is referred can significantly influence the outcome.

Build a Clear and Coherent Case

Adjudication rewards clarity. Parties should focus on developing a concise narrative that explains what the dispute is, how it arose, and why the relief sought is justified.

Overly complex arguments or unfocused submissions can obscure the key issues and make it harder for the adjudicator to follow the case within the limited timeframe available.

Assemble a Strong Evidential Bundle

Contemporaneous documents often carry more weight than retrospective explanations. Key evidence may include:

• Contracts and relevant amendments
• Payment applications, notices, and valuations
• Programmes and progress records
• Correspondence and meeting minutes
• Expert reports were necessary.

Evidence should be organised logically and referenced clearly. Volume alone is rarely persuasive.

Avoid Jurisdictional Traps

Many adjudications fail not on their merits, but on jurisdiction. Therefore, parties should ensure that:

• The dispute has crystallised.
• The correct contract is identified.
• The Notice of Adjudication accurately defines the dispute; and
• The correct adjudicator nominating body is used.

Jurisdictional errors can undermine an otherwise strong case and expose a decision to challenge or non-enforcement.

Prepare Internally as Well as Legally

For in-house teams and SMEs, adjudication can place significant demands on time and resources. Internal preparation should include:

• Identifying decision-makers early
• Ensuring access to key documents
• Coordinating between commercial, technical, and legal teams.

Clear internal communication helps avoid delays and inconsistent messaging during the adjudication.

Seek Early Legal Advice

Early legal input can help shape strategy, refine the scope of the dispute, and manage risk. In many cases, timely advice prevents common pitfalls and supports a proportionate approach aligned with the commercial realities of the dispute.

Alternatives to RICS Adjudication

While RICS adjudication is an effective dispute resolution tool, it is not always the most appropriate option. The nature of the dispute, the relationship between the parties, and the desired outcome will often determine whether an alternative approach is more suitable.

Litigation

Litigation provides a final and binding determination of disputes through the courts. It is generally better suited to:

• Complex, high-value disputes
• Cases involving multiple parties or novel legal issues
• Situations where enforcement beyond interim relief is required

However, litigation is typically slower, more expensive, and more adversarial than adjudication.

Arbitration

Arbitration offers a private forum for dispute resolution, with decisions that are final and enforceable. It may be preferable where confidentiality is a priority or the contract mandates arbitration.

Like litigation, arbitration can be time-consuming and costly, and it lacks the rapid interim relief that adjudication provides.

Mediation

Mediation is a non-binding, negotiated process facilitated by an independent mediator. It is often used where parties wish to preserve commercial relationships or explore creative settlement options.

Mediation can be cost-effective and flexible, but it relies on cooperation. Without agreement, it will not produce a binding outcome.

Expert Determination

Expert determination involves referring specific technical issues to an independent expert for a decision. It is best suited to narrow valuation or technical disputes and matters requiring specialist expertise rather than legal analysis.

Unlike adjudication, expert determination may offer limited procedural safeguards and may not benefit from statutory enforcement mechanisms.

Choosing the Right Process

Selecting the most appropriate dispute resolution method requires careful assessment. In many cases, adjudication acts as a gateway, providing early clarity and leverage before disputes are finally resolved through other means.

Early advice can help ensure that the chosen route aligns with both legal rights and commercial objectives.

How We Can Help

RICS adjudication remains one of the most effective tools for resolving construction and property disputes quickly and decisively. Its statutory backing, enforceability, and focus on speed make it particularly valuable where cash flow, programme certainty, or commercial leverage are at stake.

That said, adjudication is not a box-ticking exercise. Jurisdictional precision, procedural fairness, and careful preparation are critical. Missteps at the outset can undermine an otherwise strong case and expose parties to unnecessary risk.

We regularly advise contractors, consultants, employers, and developers on the strategic use of adjudication, including whether it is the right forum, how to frame disputes effectively, and how to protect enforcement prospects. Early, pragmatic advice can make a material difference, both to the outcome of the adjudication and to the wider commercial position. Contact us today to see how we can be of assistance.

FAQ

How long does RICS adjudication take?

Most adjudications are completed within 28 days of the Referral Notice being served. This period can be extended by agreement, particularly in more complex disputes, but the overall process is typically measured in weeks rather than months.

Is the adjudicator’s decision final?

No, an adjudicator’s decision is interim binding, meaning it must be complied with immediately but can be challenged later through litigation or arbitration. In practice, many disputes are resolved following adjudication without further proceedings.

Can a decision be challenged?

Decisions can only be challenged on limited grounds, such as lack of jurisdiction or breach of natural justice. Disagreement with the adjudicator’s reasoning or outcome is not sufficient to prevent enforcement.

What documents are needed for RICS adjudication?

Key documents usually include the contract, payment notices, valuations, programmes, correspondence, and any relevant expert evidence. The precise requirements depend on the nature of the dispute.

Can homeowners use RICS adjudication?

In some circumstances, yes. However, residential occupiers are generally excluded from statutory adjudication under the Construction Act. Contractual adjudication may still be available, depending on the wording of the agreement.

Can multiple disputes be referred to in one adjudication?

Generally, no. Adjudication is intended to deal with a single dispute. Attempting to refer multiple unrelated disputes in one adjudication is a common jurisdictional error and may render the decision unenforceable.

Do I need a solicitor for RICS adjudication?

There is no requirement to instruct a solicitor, but legal support is often advisable, particularly where jurisdictional issues, high-value claims, or complex contractual arguments are involved. Early advice can also help ensure proportionality and cost control.

What happens if the adjudicator makes a mistake?

Errors of fact or law do not usually invalidate an adjudicator’s decision. The courts accept that adjudication is a fast, interim process and will generally enforce decisions unless there is a jurisdictional or natural justice issue.

Is RICS adjudication suitable for final account disputes?

Yes, final account disputes are commonly referred to as adjudication, particularly where agreement has stalled. However, care is required to ensure the dispute has properly crystallised and that all relevant issues are clearly defined.

Image by rawpixel.com on Freepik