Introduction

On 27 March 2026, in the case of BMC Renovation Ltd v Gael Property Investments Ltd [2026] IEHC 195, the High Court (Simons J) granted leave to enforce an adjudicator’s decision under the Construction Contracts Act 2013 (CCA 2013). The case offers important guidance on the scope of the ‘residential occupier exception’ and the limits of procedural fairness challenges in statutory adjudication. The Responding Party did not comply with the adjudicator’s decision, and the Referring Party sought enforcement of the decision.

The grounds relied upon to resist enforcement

The Responding Party resisted enforcement on the primary ground that the contract was not a ‘construction contract’ because it fell within the residential occupier exception under section 2(1)(b) of the CCA 2013. That exception applies where a contract relates to a dwelling of not more than 200 square metres and one of the parties to the contract is a person who occupies, or intends to occupy, the dwelling as his or her residence. A director of the Responding Party company maintained that he and his wife was going to live in the residence. Further, the Responding Pary maintained that the adjudicator breached fair procedures by failing to consult with it before obtaining a 14-day extension from the Referring Party under section 6(7) of the CCA 2013.

The court’s decision

The court rejected the Responding Party’s residential exception argument for two reasons, (1) the Contract was between two companies, and (2) a company cannot qualify as a residential occupier. The court reasoned that the concept of occupying a ‘dwelling’ as ‘his or her residence’ only makes sense in respect of a natural person. This interpretation was supported by the legislative purpose of the exception, which is to shield ordinary householders acting as consumers from the rigours of rapid adjudication. The court also considered English authorities, including Edenbooth Ltd v Cre8 Developments Ltd [2008] EWHC 570 (TCC), noting that Coulson J had similarly observed that it is difficult to imagine how a company could ever be a residential occupier.

The court rejected the Responding Party’s fair procedures argument, holding that the two extension mechanisms in s6(6) and 6(7) are complementary and addressed to different actors. The s6(7) mechanism is adjudicator driven and requires only the consent of the Referring Party; there is no obligation to consult the Responding Party. The Responding Party retains the ability to seek a bilateral extension under s6(6), which the Responding Party never attempted in the adjudication The court noted that a director’s ill-health did not entitle the adjudicator to extend time unilaterally — the company is a distinct legal entity and must make arrangements for alternative representation.

Conclusions

The exception under s2(1)(b) of the CCA 2013 is confined to natural persons. Companies that own residential property and commission construction works will be subject to adjudication. The adjudicator’s unilateral 14-day extension (with the Referring Party’s consent) does not preclude the parties from agreeing further extensions bilaterally.

The adjudicator indicated in the decision that ‘I carried out considerable research into the request by the Responding Party to stop this adjudication or cease instruction. I consulted legal advice.’ However, it is not clear from the judgment whether the adjudicator gave the parties an opportunity to make submissions on the research carried out or the legal advice consulted. If the parties did not have the opportunity to comment on the adjudicator’s research / legal advice, perhaps this may have been a more fruitful way to challenge the decision given that the Code of Practice states that ’24 The Adjudicator may … (iii) appoint experts, assessors or legal advisers, provided that the parties have been notified or their identity and their terms of reference.’