Atholl employed UBC Group to construct houses and perform associated services. There had been two adjudications between the parties. In the first adjudication, the Adjudicator decided the proper valuation of the Final Account for the Contract. In the second adjudication, the Adjudicator decided the net amount to be paid by Atholl to UBC pursuant to the Final Account. Atholl then applied to the court to reduce the decision in the First Adjudication as Atholl submitted that the Adjudicator had made a number of errors in his decision and had not paid any attention to certain documents and submissions put in by Atholl. The judge refused to reduce the first decision by the Adjudicator. It was no defence to enforcement, and no ground for reduction to say that the Adjudicator had erred in fact or in law or, unless it results in manifest unfairness, in procedure. The judge was not persuaded from the material before him that it could be inferred that the Adjudicator had consciously or unconsciously disregarded Atholl’s submissions or the documents which they had put before him. Atholl failed to demonstrate that the Adjudicator either exceeded his jurisdiction, failed to exhaust his jurisdiction, or was in material breach of the rules of natural justice. The judge added that, even if he had been of the view that the decision in the first adjudication might be reduced, it would not follow that the decision in the second adjudication would necessarily fall.