Smash & Grabs are simple…. right?
Our perspectives from Placefirst v CAR [2025] EWHC 100 (TCC)
Introduction
"Smash and grab" adjudications have become familiar tools in the QS and contractor toolkit—straightforward in principle, but as this recent case shows, they can unravel quickly. In Placefirst Construction Ltd v CAR Construction (North East) Ltd, what seemed like a procedural win for the subcontractor turned into a cautionary tale when the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) overturned the adjudicator’s decision. So, how did we get here—and what can we learn?
What Happened in the Case
CAR Construction, a subcontractor working under an amended JCT D&B 2016 subcontract, submitted an interim payment application. Placefirst, the main contractor, responded with an email enclosing two key documents: a Pay Less Notice and a Valuation spreadsheet referred to as “Valuation 30.”
CAR launched a "smash and grab" adjudication, arguing the response was invalid—specifically, that the Pay Less Notice was served too early, before their application could become the effective payment notice under the Act. The adjudicator agreed and awarded CAR over £867,000.
Placefirst challenged the enforcement of that decision in the TCC. The court took a detailed look at the timing, content, and function of the documents issued—and came to a different conclusion. It held that:
The Pay Less Notice was valid, even if served immediately after the payment application. There’s no statutory requirement to wait until the application "matures" into a default notice.
The accompanying Valuation spreadsheet was sufficiently clear and complete to qualify as a Payment Notice in its own right—even if it wasn’t labelled as such.
What This Means in Practice
In real-world QS practice, this case reinforces a simple but often-overlooked truth: labels don’t matter as much as substance. You can call a document a “valuation” or “certificate,” but if it contains all the required information and is issued within the correct timeframe, it may serve as a valid notice.
It also confirms that Pay Less Notices can be issued as soon as a valid application is received. You don’t need to wait for the application to become the “notified sum” under the Construction Act before acting. That’s a crucial clarification, especially for employers and main contractors aiming to avoid costly adjudication losses on technicalities.
Impact on Everyday Quantity Surveying
For QSs preparing or reviewing payment cycles, this judgment shifts the focus firmly onto clear processes, timing discipline, and document content. Relying on template titles or waiting out timelines could land you in hot water.
Missed deadlines or vague notices can trigger smash and grab claims that are hard to undo.
Overlooking the dual function of documents—like valuation spreadsheets that could also serve as notices—may mean missing opportunities to protect your client or employer position.
Contractual familiarity matters: both parties must know how their payment mechanisms align with statutory duties.
How to Avoid This Problem
To avoid similar disputes:
✅ Use clear, standardised templates for payment and pay less notices—but always check the actual content.
✅ Keep a tight payment timeline: diary entries, automated reminders, and workflows make all the difference.
✅ Train commercial teams to recognise when a response can serve dual purposes (valuation + notice).
✅ Document intent where possible—make it obvious what each communication is meant to do.
✅ Review subcontract amendments thoroughly—statutory alignment isn’t always perfect.
Final Thought
Smash and grabs aren’t dead—but they’re not bulletproof either. If you're relying on procedure alone, this case shows how quickly things can shift. For both payers and payees, precision and clarity are your best defence.