In this case, RSC Contractors sought to enforce an adjudication decision dated 25 November 2015 for £59,551.65 inclusive of interest against Anthony Conway.

RCS Contractors Ltd carried out groundworks for Mr Conway as a subcontractor at three sites: Walmer Road, Notting Hill, London; Middlemas Green, Pewsey, Wiltshire; and Ridge Road, Sutton, Surrey. Mr Conway entered into three main contracts for works at separate sites as a contractor. When Mr Conway failed to pay the final account, RCS referred the dispute for adjudication under Section 108(1) of the Housing Grants Construction Regeneration Act 1996. As there was no written contract between the parties, the Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998 (SI 1998/649) had applied. The adjudicator made an award in favour of RSC for £59,551.65 inclusive of interest. On 6 May 2016, Mr Conway, successfully obtained leave to defend the claim "limited to the sole ground that the adjudicator had no jurisdiction, because it is said he has wrongly concluded that there was one construction contract for the works at the three sites". As such, Coulson J was required to determine whether an adjudicator had had jurisdiction to make an award.

Coulson J enforced the adjudicator’s decision relating to an oral agreement in favour of RSC. He rejected Mr Conway’s challenge to the enforcement of the decision on the ground that more than one dispute had been referred to the adjudicator. On the balance of probabilities, Coulson J held that the work at three sites derives from one contract. Different documentation for each site did not mean that there are three separate contracts and emphasised that “all that matters is whether the parties agreed that there was one contract or three”. Hence, the dispute between the parties derives from the work done under one contract which had been referred to adjudication as a single dispute regarding what was due under that contract.

Interestingly, Coulson J made a critical comment about the amendments made to the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 in 2009. He noted that the limited right to adjudicate from written contracts was "unthinkingly repealed". It highlighted the difficulty for adjudicators in deciding on oral contracts and the fact that subsequent adjudication decisions are rarely subject to successful summary judgment application. Highlighting the costs and delay of this case, Coulson J stated that it “is the opposite of the quick, cheap dispute resolution service that adjudication was intended to provide”.