The decision in Flexidig v M&M [2020] EWHC 847 (TCC) demonstrates a 'third-way' approach to the 'smash-and-grab' adjudication. Here, an adjudicator used s111(8) of the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (as amended) to depart from the sum specified in a valid Pay Less Notice (PLN) to determine whether more, or less, than that sum should be paid. In summary, Flexidig Limited applied for summary judgement to enforce an adjudicator's decision against its employer M&M Contractors (Europe) Limited regarding the valuation of a PLN. The adjudicator had held that the PLN was valid but nevertheless used s111(8) to reduce the PLN to an 'on account' figure.
展开▼
机译：Flexidig V M＆M的决定[2020] EWHC 847（TCC）展示了“粉碎和抢夺”裁决的“三路”方法。这里，1996（如修改后）的壳体授权的判决器使用的S111（8）（如修正）将从有效支付的总和（PLN）中指定的总和脱离，以确定是否比该和更少，而不是该总和有薪酬的。总之，Flexidig有限公司申请总结判决，以执行裁决者对其雇主M＆M承包商（欧洲）有限公司的决定，这些决定有限公司有限公司。判决者已经持有，PLN有效，但仍然使用S111（8）将PLN减少到“帐户”图中。
展开▼
