GPS was engaged by Ringway to dredge a berth which was used by Ringway to import aggregates by boat. GPS referred a payment dispute to adjudication. The adjudicator awarded GPS £214,407.69 plus VAT, which Ringway did not pay.

At enforcement, Ringway submitted that the adjudicator did not have jurisdiction as:

1. There was a compromise or withdrawal of the dispute by GPS;
2. More than one dispute was referred to the adjudicator;
3. The decision of the adjudicator was no longer binding on the parties, through agreement;
4. The adjudicator’s decision was obtained by fraud; and
5. There had been a breach of natural justice.

The judge held that:

1. There had been a meeting prior to the adjudication and there was conflicting oral evidence as to whether GPS had compromised or withdrawn their claim. Whilst the Judge said Ringway’s defence on this basis was weak, it was not fanciful. Ringway had a real prospect of successfully defending the claim on this basis at trial.

The issue had been decided by the adjudicator against Ringway, but the judge found that Ringway had sufficiently reserved their rights as to the adjudicator’s jurisdiction, and were entitled to raise the issue as a defence in the enforcement proceedings;

2. There was only one dispute referred to the adjudicator. Ringway had submitted that there were two separate agreements, the May 2008 and the June 2008 agreements, and accordingly disputes under two agreements could only be referred by GPS with Ringway’s consent, which it had not given. The judge disagreed and found that the June 2008 agreement was a variation to the May 2008 agreement and accordingly there was one dispute, as to how much was owed to GPS, under one contract;

3. The adjudicator’s decision was still binding on the parties, subject to final determination. Ringway submitted that the parties had agreed, in their pleadings, that part of the decision was incorrect. However, the judge decided that at most, the parties agreed that the adjudicator had made an error of fact or law, but this did not prevent the decision from being temporarily binding;

4. The adjudicator’s decision was not obtained by fraud. Ringway had submitted that GPS had not been deliberately dishonest, but had been reckless as to the figures it claimed, and these figures had been upheld by the adjudicator. The judge found that whilst there had been mistakes by GPS in the figures claimed, these amounted to a significant undercharging in favour of Ringway, and therefore this could not be taken to be fraudulent behaviour. Further, even if this was wrong, the adjudicator had decided on the point and would therefore would be an error of fact or law which would not, in this case, prevent enforcement;

5. There was not a breach of natural justice by the adjudicator. Ringway had served a rejoinder two days before the date for the adjudicator’s decision despite prior indications that this would, and could not be allowed. The adjudicator had disregarded this submission when entered. The judge held that the adjudicator had the power, under the Scheme, to limit submissions and this is what he had done.

Accordingly the Court held that, because of the compromise or withdrawal defence, the claim could not be summarily enforced. However, because the Judge considered Ringway’s case on the compromise or withdrawal to be weak, he ordered that the amount claimed had to be paid into Court by Ringway, as a condition of being permitted to defend the claim.