In this episode, Guy Jackson talks to Kort Egan of Gatehouse chambers about the enforcement of adjudication decisions. How are adjudication decisions treated when parties look to obtain or resist the decision they’ve been awarded? 

The pair look at the background to enforcement and its purpose. Can enforcement be easily resisted? Should enforcement be quick, in a similar fashion to the adjudication process itself? They also examine adjudicators' decisions and settlement agreements, and ask ‘what is the balance of probabilities’ and can it be interpreted differently by different people?  

The two look at the case of Carillion v Devonport. Is there any realistic option for resisting enforcement unless you have a very clear argument? Should an adjudicator set out their reasoning in detail on every adjudication? Is the quality of a decision something that can be raised?