Camber, the defendant, engaged Pillar under a Letter of Intent for the construction of twelve new houses. A dispute occurred and an adjudication was initiated by Pillar in October 2003. Camber immediately raised objections to the adjudication on the grounds that the Adjudicator did not have jurisdiction. However, he then responded to Pillar's substantive claims in a detailed response document, defending each item claimed. In addition, Camber made a number of cross-claims which were not in defence to Pillar's claims. The Adjudicator decided all of the disputes put forward to him by both Pillar and Camber, including the cross-claims, and awarded a net sum or £46,000 to Pillar.

Pillar sought summary judgment to enforce the adjudicator's award. Camber disputed that he should have to pay the sum as his response document had clearly stated he would 'only take part in the adjudication on the basis that such action will not prejudice its case [that the adjudicator has no jurisdiction]'. He contended that Pillar had no basis for starting an adjudication as the parties had never entered into a contract, and even if there was deemed to be a contract, it was not sufficiently evidenced in writing, as required by s107 of the HGCRA 1996.

HHJ Thornton QC held that Camber's response document 'clearly and unequivocally' waived its entitlement to rely on the previous objections. It constituted an offer to Pillar to agree to widen the adjudicator's jurisdiction to include all claims and cross-claims. Through their pleadings, the parties had consented to an ad hoc adjudication and waived any jurisdictional objections each might have had. He stated:

"On analysis, Camber's original objection was a conditional objection which was put forward on the basis that it would not be effective or operative if the offer contained by the service of its cross-claims document was accepted..."

In obiter, HHJ Thornton also concluded that there was a contract sufficiently evidenced in writing, as required by the HGCRA's requirements, for an adjudication to have been permitted even had the parties not agreed to an ad hoc adjudication.

Pillar was entitled to summary judgment and the sum claimed as decided by the adjudicator.