SG South Ltd v King’s Head Cirencester LLP and another [2009] EWHC 2645 (TCC), [2009] All ER (D) 120 (Nov)
Fraud or deceit might be raised as a defence in adjudications provided that it was a real defence to the claims. If fraud was to be raised in an effort to avoid enforcement or to support an application to stay execution of the enforcement judgement, it should be supported by clear and unambiguous evidence and argument.
A distinction was to be made between: (a) fraudulent behaviour, acts or omissions which were or could have been raised as a defence in the adjudication; and (b) such behaviour, acts or omissions which neither were nor could reasonably have been raised but which emerged afterwards. In the latter case, it was necessary to differentiate between fraud which directly impacted on the subject matter of the decision and that which was independent of it.
While matters in the first category might be raised, generally those in the second category should not be. Decisions of adjudicators should be enforced, but the court would not permit the enforcement directly or at least indirectly of
