KNN Coburn LLP (“KNN”) referred a dispute under a contract with GD City Holdings Limited (“GD City”) to adjudication on 31 January 2013. This was the third adjudication between the parties arising out of the contract.

KNN sent a soft copy of the Referral Notice by email to the adjudicator and GD City’s solicitors on 31 January 2013 and confirmed that a hard copy of the supporting documentation would follow the next day. The adjudicator acknowledged receipt of the Referral Notice by email on 31 January 2013 and on 1 February wrote to the parties confirming the timetable for the adjudication which he determined by “[t]aking Friday 1 February 2013 as day zero, I calculate day twenty eight as falling on Friday 1 March 2013”.

On 1 February 2013, GD City wrote to the adjudicator objecting to his appointment on the basis that a previous adjudication had decided the issues referred to him. The adjudicator rejected GD City’s jurisdictional challenge and GD City participated in the adjudication according to the timetable set by the adjudicator without prejudice to its primary position on jurisdiction.

KNN issued proceedings to enforce the adjudicator’s decision which had been delivered on 1 March 2013. GD City resisted the application on the basis that the adjudicator’s decision was issued outside the twenty eight day period required under paragraph 19(1) of the Scheme for Construction Contracts. GD City submitted that the Referral Notice was served on 31 January 2013, and therefore the decision should have been issued by 28 February 2013. KNN contended that the supporting documents were submitted on 1 February 2013, (which were necessary for the adjudicator to consider the dispute) making 1 March 2013 the date by which the decision was due. KNN also contended that GD City failed to object to the adjudicator’s timetable at any point.

The Judge, agreeing with Ramsey J’s decision in PT Building Services Ltd v ROK Build Limited, found that the clear words of paragraph 19(1) of the Scheme make the Referral Notice the document by reference to which the adjudication process is to be commenced. This meant that 31 January 2013 was the proper date at which time started running in the adjudication. However, the Judge was persuaded by KNN’s secondary position and, citing Coulson J’s decision in Letchworth Roofing Co v Sterling Building Co, found that GD City’s participation in the adjudication could not be ignored: by its silence GD City had accepted the adjudicator’s timetable as laid down.

In relation to GD City’s jurisdictional arguments, the Judge also found in favour of KNN, rejecting GD City’s arguments that the issues in the adjudication had been decided before, or that there had been a breach of the rules of natural justice.