PIHL engaged IBS to carry out certain works to schools in Aberdeen. The project was funded by an Icelandic bank which went into administration. The delays caused by the refinancing gave rise to delays and claims by IBS against PIHL. IBS subsequently issued three notices of adjudication. The contract contained dispute resolution provisions which stated, amongst other things, that an adjudication would be temporarily binding and any decision should be complied with without delay. A single Adjudicator was appointed, and found in favour of IBS, ordering payment of just over £640,000 in total. IBS started enforcement proceedings but shortly afterwards went into administration. PIHL submitted that it did not need to make payment of the Adjudicator’s decisions as they were entitled to set off their own claims, due to the principle of balancing of accounts in bankruptcy. The equivalent right under English law is Rule 4.90 of the Insolvency Rules 1986. The judge held that PIHL were entitled to rely on the principle of balancing accounts in insolvency, to prevent enforcement of the Adjudicator’s decision. The judge considered the Act to see if the Act placed any limitations on the use of the principle of balancing of accounts. He noted that adjudication is provisional in nature and either party can choose to litigate or arbitrate to get a final determination. There was nothing in the Act which sought to transfer the risk of contractor insolvency. If an Adjudicator’s decision was enforced, then it may be unlikely that the employer is repaid those sums following a final determination of the dispute. The judge also looked at the position in England and Wales and noted that a party resisting enforcement could be made to pay sums into court. However, a stay is unlikely to be granted where the party bringing enforcement proceedings’ financial position was similar when the contract was entered into, or the resisting party's failure to pay sums owed had caused or significantly contributed to the beneficiary's predicament. The judge noted the principle is an equitable one which gives the court latitude to regulate its operation to ensure fairness. He also noted it could apply where a party had not entered formal insolvency such as administration or liquidation, but that this would need strong evidence. An important factor in this case was that the insolvency had taken place after the adjudication and before the enforcement proceedings. If the insolvency had occurred prior to or during the adjudication, then a party could only rely on balancing of payments as a defence in enforcement proceedings, if it had pleaded it in the adjudication.