In this case, O'Farrell J reviewed the Claimant’s (“Jacobs”) injunction against the Defendant (“Skanska”) to restrain Skanska from proceeding with an adjudication following Skanska’s withdrawal from an earlier adjudication between the parties. The central question considered by O'Farrell J was whether a party to an adjudication is entitled to withdraw a dispute from adjudication and subsequently refer the same, or substantially the same, dispute to a second adjudication.

A dispute between the parties arose with regard to the adequacy of the design services provided by Jacobs. Skanska gave a notice of its intention to refer the dispute to adjudication and the parties subsequently agreed an ad hoc timetable. However, Skanska’s counsel became unavailable and sought an extension of time two days before the deadline for the submission of its reply. The adjudicator refused to grant an extension of time. Skanska withdrew its reference to adjudication and invited the adjudicator to resign, which he did. A few months later, Skanska gave notice of its intention to submit the dispute to a second adjudication. The Referral in the second adjudication contained the same claims against Jacobs save that one of the claims had been withdrawn. The methodology and quantum of the damages claimed had also been revised.

O'Farrell J declined to grant injunctive relief to prevent Skanska with a second adjudication to deal with the same dispute in circumstances where Skanska withdrew from the first adjudication. She held that there is no express or implied restriction in the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 or the Scheme preventing a party from withdrawing a disputed claim and then recommencing another adjudication. However, the court has the power to grant such injunction to prevent an adjudication under section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 if any further adjudication is “unreasonable and oppressive”. In this case, the learned Judge held that the second adjudication did not amount to unreasonable and oppressive behaviour so that no injunction would be granted. However, the court held that Jacobs was entitled to its “wasted or additional costs” caused by Skanska’s failure to comply with the first adjudication agreement.

This case outlines that a party to an adjudication is entitled to unilaterally withdraw from a dispute referred to adjudication and commence a further adjudication in respect of the same, or substantially the same, dispute at a later stage provided that the further adjudication is not “unreasonable and oppressive”.