Newlon Housing Trust (“Newlon”) employed Willmott Dixon Housing Limited (“Willmott Dixon”) to carry out works on a mixed-use development in Tottenham Hale, London. The contract provided for disputes to be referred to adjudication in accordance with the latest edition of the Construction Industry Council (“CIC”) Rules.

On 9 October 2012 Willmott Dixon served two separate Notices of Adjudication on Newton and applied to the CIC for the appointment of an adjudicator to each dispute. The CIC appointed the same adjudicator to each dispute.

During the course of both adjudications, an issue arose in relation to Willmott Dixon’s service of its Referral Notice. Newlon claimed it had only received a covering letter dated 11 October 2012, a copy of a Referral Notice dated 27 July 2012 (which had been served by Willmott Dixon in a previous adjudication between the parties) and a bundle of supporting documentation. By the time Willmott Dixon served the Referrals, Newlon had served its Response in both adjudications on the basis of the information contained in the Referral that had been served in connection with the previous adjudication dated 27 July 2012). Newlon raised the fact that it had responded to the 27 July 2012 Referral on receiving Willmott Dixon’s Reply which enclosed a copy of the correct Referral Notice dated 11 October 2012. Newlon subsequently submitted a Rejoinder dealing with the 11 October Referral Notice.

Following the submissions, the adjudicator emailed the parties stating that he had also not received the correct Referral Notice dated 11 October 2012. However, he later emailed the parties to advise that he had in fact received the correct Referral Notice on 11 October 2012.

The adjudicator found in favour of Willmott Dixon in both adjudications.

On 6 December 2012 Willmott Dixon commenced enforcement proceedings as Newlon failed to pay the sums awarded in either adjudication. Newlon disputed the enforcement on the basis that the adjudicator did not have jurisdiction because (i) the Referral Notices were not properly served in accordance with Rule 14 of the CIC Rules, namely that a statement of case had not been sent to the adjudicator within seven days of the Notice of Adjudication and copied to the responding party at the same time and (ii) two disputes had been referred to adjudication to be dealt with by the same adjudicator.

On enforcement, the Judge rejected Newlon’s arguments and granted summary judgment.

On the first issue, he held that the action that founds the adjudicator’s jurisdiction under Rule 14 of the CIC Rules was the service of the statement of case on the adjudicator within 7 days of issuing the Notice. As the adjudicator had made it clear that he had received the Referral Notices on 12 October 2012, the adjudicator had jurisdiction and the failure to serve the Referral Notices on Newlon at the same time as the adjudicator would deprive the adjudicator of jurisdiction under Rule 14. The Judge was of also of the view that the covering letter and bundle of documents submitted on 12 October 2012 sufficiently set out Willmott Dixon’s statement of case in both adjudications and noted that the CIC Rules did not prescribe the form of a party's statement of case.

On the second issue, the Judge held there was nothing in section 108(1) of the Construction Act 1996, the CIC Rules "or otherwise" to prevent a party from referring two disputes to adjudication at the same time.