Adjudication under NEC4 costs more than money. It costs relationships, management time, commercial goodwill, and months of focus that should be going into finishing the project. The contractors who avoid it aren't luckier — they use NEC4's own mechanisms as a systematic dispute prevention toolkit. Those tools are already in your contract. The question is whether your team is actually using them.
This guide covers why NEC4 disputes arise, five concrete prevention strategies built into the contract, what adjudication looks like when prevention fails, and how contemporaneous records determine the outcome either way.
Why NEC4 Disputes Arise
Most NEC4 disputes aren't actually about the law. They're about administration failures that compound over months until both parties are standing across a table with lawyers.
Three patterns account for the vast majority of cases I've seen escalate to adjudication.
Notification failures. The eight-week time bar under Clause 61.3 kills more legitimate claims than any contractual argument. A contractor becomes aware of a compensation event, assumes it'll get picked up later, and misses the notification window. The Project Manager refuses to assess it. Now it's a dispute — not because the underlying entitlement wasn't real, but because the administration was sloppy.
Assessment disagreements. The contractor submits a compensation event quotation under Clause 62. The Project Manager rejects or amends it. If this happens once, it's a commercial conversation. If it happens repeatedly, it becomes a dispute about method, not just money.
Programme disagreements. One party says the event caused delay to completion. The other says the critical path ran differently. Without a current, accepted programme, neither party can prove their position — and the adjudicator has to work from incomplete and often contradictory records.
Each of these is preventable. That's the point.
5 Ways to Prevent NEC4 Disputes
1. Use Early Warnings as They Were Designed — Not as a Formality
Most commercial teams treat the early warning mechanism as a notification box to tick. That's wrong, and it's expensive.
Clause 15 requires both the Contractor and the Project Manager to notify matters that could increase the Prices, delay Completion, or impair the performance of the Works in use. The obligation is mutual. It's also early — the clause says "as soon as either becomes aware." Not when it's confirmed. Not after it's been discussed. On awareness.
Done properly, early warnings change the dynamics completely. When both parties identify a risk before it becomes a problem, they can solve it collaboratively. When one party sits on knowledge of a risk and the other finds out later, the relationship deteriorates immediately. "Why didn't you tell us?" is a question that never leads anywhere constructive.
Keep the early warning register live. Review it at every Project Manager/Contractor meeting. Every item should have an owner, an action, and a target date. On a well-administered contract, the EWR becomes the primary commercial forum — issues get discussed there before they become compensation events, let alone disputes.
One discipline that genuinely works: treat unnotified risks as a red flag in your monthly commercial review. If your team is raising compensation events for events that never appeared on the EWR, something is wrong.
2. Notify Every Compensation Event Within Eight Weeks
This sounds obvious. It isn't being done. On a typical £50M NEC4 project, I'd estimate 30–40% of legitimate compensation events are either notified late or not notified at all. That's not a contractual dispute — it's a forfeit.
The eight-week time bar under Clause 61.3 is strict. Miss it and the entitlement is gone. The clock runs from the date the Contractor became aware of the event — not from when it was formally confirmed, not from when the impact crystallised, not from when the monthly commercial meeting got around to discussing it.
The fix is systematic, not heroic. Set up a log. Every site instruction, every design change, every access restriction, every delay to required information — it goes on the log the week it happens, along with the date of awareness. Every week, someone checks which items are approaching the eight-week window. The notification goes out before the deadline, not after.
Also: notify even where you're unsure whether something is a compensation event. Clause 61.1 allows the Contractor to notify a matter they believe is a CE. If the Project Manager agrees it isn't one, nothing is lost. If you don't notify and later discover it was a CE, the entitlement is gone entirely.
3. Maintain a Current, Accepted Programme
Disputes about time almost always come down to one question: what was on the critical path when the event happened? Without an accepted, current programme, neither party can answer it honestly.
Under Clause 32.1, the Contractor must submit revised programmes when instructed or when the programme shows no float. Most major contracts require monthly submissions. The Project Manager must accept or reject within two weeks (Clause 32.2). If they neither accept nor reject, the programme is treated as accepted by default.
When a compensation event is assessed, it's assessed against the Accepted Programme. Under Clause 63.1, if there is no Accepted Programme, the Project Manager makes their own assessment. Their assessment will almost never favour the Contractor. This is entirely avoidable.
Programme management and dispute prevention are the same thing. See the NEC4 programme management guide for what a compliant programme must show. Key disciplines: update every four to six weeks, show method statements and resource loadings, include any float that exists, and chase acceptance formally if the PM is sitting on it beyond the two-week window.
4. Keep Contemporaneous Records That Hold Up in Evidence
If a dispute reaches adjudication, the side with better records wins. Not always. But significantly more often than chance.
"Records" doesn't mean a site diary your foreman fills in for two weeks then abandons. It means a daily, contemporaneous written record of what happened on site, what resources were deployed, what instructions were received, what the weather was, what went wrong, and why. Timestamped. Signed. Consistent.
The records and compliance obligations under NEC4 are extensive. For compensation events specifically, you need records that establish four things: the date you became aware of the event; the nature of the event and how it differs from the original Works Information; the resources deployed and their costs at the time; and the impact on the programme and critical path. That means daily site diaries with resource allocation, contemporaneous photographs, the Project Manager's instruction as issued, allocation sheets linking labour to affected activities, and programme snapshots from the period.
The contemporaneous record isn't preparation for a dispute. It's how you administer the contract properly. The fact that it also protects you in adjudication is a consequence of good administration, not the cause of it.
I've seen this go wrong badly. On a highways package in the North West, a Tier 1 contractor couldn't substantiate £1.4M in compensation event claims at final account because the site records — which everyone on site said were comprehensive — turned out to be incomplete, inconsistent, and in several cases undated. The records existed. They just couldn't be used as evidence.
5. Act in the Spirit of Mutual Trust — And Enforce It When the Other Side Doesn't
Clause 10.2 isn't aspirational language. It's a contractual obligation: "The Parties, the Project Manager, and the Supervisor shall act in a spirit of mutual trust and cooperation."
When one party is failing to meet its Clause 10.2 obligations, document it. If the PM isn't responding to early warnings, write formally. If the PM isn't responding to CE quotations within the two-week period required under Clause 62.3, issue a formal notice under Clause 62.6. The contract has a deemed-acceptance mechanism for a reason. Use it.
Mutual trust isn't about being soft. It's about forcing the contract to work as designed. Teams that operate this way rarely end up in adjudication — not because they avoid conflict, but because they deal with it early, on paper, through the contract's own mechanisms.
Worked Example: Same Project, Two Different Outcomes
£38M Road Improvement Scheme, NEC4 Option C
On 14 January 2025, the Project Manager issues an instruction postponing access to Section 3 due to a third-party utility diversion not completed by the statutory undertaker. The instruction arrives during a weekly commercial review.
Version A — Prevention Works
The commercial manager logs the event the same day — date of awareness: 14 January 2025. CE-019 notification goes out on 17 January, three days after awareness. Site diaries from 14 January record resources stood off Section 3, crew redeployed, plant idle time, and the specific instruction reference. An early warning is raised on 21 January noting the Completion Date is at risk if the utility diversion isn't complete by 7 February. A Risk Reduction Meeting is held on 28 January. CE-019 is assessed at £147,000 additional Defined Cost and a four-week extension. Both parties agree. The dispute never happens.
Version B — Prevention Fails
Same event. Nobody logs the awareness date formally. The CE notification goes out on 28 March — ten weeks later. The Project Manager refuses to assess it: "You're time-barred under Clause 61.3." The Contractor disputes this. Now it's an adjudication. The referral costs £35,000 in consultant time to prepare. The adjudicator sides with the PM. The £147,000 entitlement is gone.
The difference: an awareness log, a three-day notification, and eight weeks of contemporaneous site records.
When Prevention Fails: The NEC4 Adjudication Process
Prevention works most of the time. Not always. When a dispute does arise, the NEC4 adjudication process is structured differently from traditional construction disputes — and understanding it in advance lets you prepare properly.
What Counts as a Dispute
Under the NEC4 dispute resolution options (Option W1 or W2, depending on the contract), a dispute arises when a party is dissatisfied with an action or inaction by the other party, and that dissatisfaction is notified. This includes compensation event assessments the Contractor disagrees with, events the Project Manager refuses to treat as CEs, payment disputes, programme acceptance decisions, and any failure to act in accordance with the contract.
The critical discipline: notify dissatisfaction promptly. Under Option W2, a dispute can only be referred to adjudication after a notification of dissatisfaction and a waiting period. Miss the notification window and you may lose the right to refer.
The Adjudication Timeline
Scroll to see full table →
| Stage | Timescale (Option W1) |
|---|---|
| Notice of adjudication | Day 0 |
| Referral notice (full submissions) | Within 7 days |
| Adjudicator's decision | 28 days from referral (extendable by 14 days with Contractor consent) |
| Decision binding | Immediately — unless and until revised by tribunal |
Speed matters here. The seven-day referral window means you need your evidence, your programme analysis, and your submissions prepared before the adjudicator is even appointed. Teams who "prepare as they go" consistently perform worse than teams who've maintained contemporaneous records throughout the project.
What Adjudicators Actually Look At
I'll be blunt about this. Adjudicators are experienced construction professionals. They can tell within the first twenty pages of a referral whether the parties have administered the contract properly or spent the last year papering over administrative failures.
In my experience, adjudicators give significant weight to four things. First, contemporaneous records — an entry in a site diary from March that records a specific instruction and the resources deployed is worth ten retrospective statements about what "must have happened." Second, programme compliance — was the Accepted Programme current? Third, notification discipline — did the Contractor notify CEs promptly? Did the PM respond within contractual timescales? And fourth, early warning compliance — did both parties use the early warning mechanism properly?
A party who has consistently met their obligations looks different from one who is trying to argue their way out of missed deadlines.
The Conflict Avoidance Option
Since March 2025, NEC has published a Practice Note on Conflict Avoidance Panels (CAPs) — structured panels that sit alongside the project and review emerging disputes before they reach adjudication. A party notifies a disagreement, both parties refer it to the panel within two weeks, and the panel issues a recommendation — non-binding but often accepted.
CAPs are more common on infrastructure megaprojects (HS2, East West Rail, major highways packages) but are increasingly being incorporated into Tier 1 frameworks. Option W3 goes further, establishing a standing Dispute Avoidance Board that monitors the project throughout its life. If your contract includes a CAP, use it. The cost is a fraction of adjudication.
The Records–Dispute Connection
Every strategy above depends on records. Early warnings are only enforceable if they're documented. CE notifications are only timely if there's a record of when awareness occurred. Programme analyses only work if there are contemporaneous programme snapshots. Adjudication submissions are only persuasive if they're supported by contemporaneous evidence.
The connection between daily site records and dispute prevention isn't incidental — it's structural. NEC4 was designed around the assumption that both parties maintain accurate, contemporaneous records. When they do, disputes become factual questions with factual answers. When they don't, disputes become credibility contests — and those are expensive, uncertain, and damaging to relationships.
The commercial case is straightforward. On a £40M NEC4 Option C package, robust records enable recovery of CEs that might otherwise be time-barred, provide the evidence base for programme analyses, reduce adjudication referral costs because submissions can be prepared in days rather than weeks, and deter the other party from refusing legitimate assessments because they know the contractor has the evidence to succeed.
Gather's QS AI Agent analyses every site diary entry against NEC4 clause 60.1 categories, recording the awareness date for every potential compensation event. When a dispute arises, your commercial team has the contemporaneous evidence base that adjudication depends on — captured at the time, not reconstructed months later.
Quick Reference: NEC4 Dispute Prevention
Scroll to see full table →
| Risk | Prevention Mechanism | Clause | Without It |
|---|---|---|---|
| CE not notified in time | Systematic CE log with awareness dates; weekly deadline review | 61.3 | Entitlement lost — no assessment possible |
| PM won't assess CE | Issue Clause 62.6 notice after two-week window | 62.3, 62.6 | PM assesses under their own assumptions |
| No accepted programme | Submit monthly updates; chase acceptance formally | 31, 32 | PM assesses without programme — typically unfavourable |
| Assessment disagreement | Notify dissatisfaction promptly under W1 or W2 | W1/W2 | May lose right to refer to adjudication |
| Missing contemporaneous evidence | Daily records; digital record-keeping with timestamps | 10.2 | Adjudication outcome determined by whoever has better records |
| Emerging risk not flagged | Early warning register, reviewed weekly | 15 | Risk compounds; collaborative resolution opportunity lost |
| Poor programme analysis | Monthly programme updates; TIA method for CE quotations | 63 | Cannot demonstrate CE caused critical delay |
.webp)
