Lessons from Tenderbids Ltd v Electrical Waste Management Ltd | Part 2

The Enforcement of Tenderbids Ltd v Electrical Waste Management Ltd was Held by the High Court on the 12^th January 2026.

The High Court held that:

1. The Notice of Intention to Refer to Adjudication was invalid, because
   • the contract required service by registered post, and
   • Tenderbids served it by email only
2. Because the Notice of Intention was invalid:
   • the adjudicator never had jurisdiction
   • the adjudication process was void from the outset
3. As a result:
   • the adjudicator’s €1.53m decision was a legal nullity
   • the High Court refused enforcement

This was not discretionary. The Court held it had no power to cure the defect or overlook it.

What does this mean for this case?

For Tenderbids

• The adjudicator’s award is worth nothing
• Tenderbids must:
  • restart adjudication with proper service, or
  • pursue arbitration/litigation
• They also absorbed:
  • delay
  • legal costs
  • loss of the “pay now” advantage

For Electrical Waste Management

• Their nonparticipation did not hurt them
• They were entitled to rely on:
  • strict contractual compliance
• They successfully defeated enforcement without ever contesting the merits

Why is this decision so important under the CCA 2013?

This judgment is the most important Irish adjudication case since 2013 for four reasons.

(1) It is the first ever refusal to enforce a CCA adjudication

Before this:

• Irish courts almost always enforced adjudicators’ decisions
• Challenges were narrowly confined to:
  • jurisdiction
  • natural justice

This case confirms:

Service of the Notice of Intention is a jurisdictional gateway. If it fails, everything fails.

(2) Contractual notice clauses override “effective means”

Section 10 CCA 2013 says:

• parties may agree how notices are delivered
• only if they do not, can “any effective means” be used

The Court ruled:

• once parties agree a method, that choice is binding
• “effective in fact” ≠ “effective in law”

So:

• actual receipt
• email read receipts
• prior email communication

do not matter.

(3) The Court rejected all flexibility arguments

The Court expressly rejected:

• implied waiver
• lack of prejudice
• commercial common sense
• proportionality
• analogy with court service case law

This confirms:

Adjudication under the CCA 2013 is formal, not informal.

(4) It strengthens certainty, not weakens adjudication

Crucially, Simons J emphasised that:

• the judgment is not anti-adjudication
• adjudication remains strongly supported
• but courts cannot rewrite contracts

In effect:

Adjudication remains fast and enforceable… BUT Only if the statutory and contractual gateways are respected

The practical meaning for CCA 2013 going forward

This decision now means

Absolute rule

If the Notice of Intention is not served exactly as the contract requires, the adjudicator has no jurisdiction.

Courts will not:

• deem service good
• excuse technical errors
• rescue defective notices

Changed behaviour in practice

• Lawyers now insist on: 
  • registered post and
  • courier and
  • Belt-and-braces service
• Responding parties may: 
  • stay silent
  • challenge enforcement later

If you have any questions about contract claims, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Legal Disclaimer
The information provided on this blog is for general informational purposes only. All content is provided in good faith; however, we make no representation or warranty of any kind, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, adequacy, validity, reliability, availability, or completeness of any information on the site. Under no circumstance shall we have any liability to you for any loss or damage of any kind incurred as a result of the use of the site or reliance on any information provided on the site. Your use of the site and your reliance on any information on the site is solely at your own risk. This blog may contain links to other websites or content belonging to or originating from third parties. Such external links are not investigated, monitored, or checked for accuracy, adequacy, validity, reliability, availability, or completeness by us. The views and opinions expressed on this blog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any other agency, organization, employer, or company. We reserve the right to change or update this disclaimer at any time without notice.