Waldeck Associates Limited sought summary judgment on its application to enforce an adjudication decision against Decomo UK Limited. Issues of potential conflict of an adjudicator’s decisions were addressed by the court.

Waldeck, a multi-disciplinary consultancy, engaged Decomo for pre-cast concrete cladding system to be used for a project to develop 650 properties at Nine Elms Point, London. A dispute between the parties arose regarding the valuation of the Waldeck’s works and was referred to adjudication. The adjudicator’s first decision held that the contract had incorporated a number of documents which included the claimant’s fee proposal from Waldeck and a schedule of rates. He outlined Waldeck’s entitlement to payment for the scope of works identified in the fee proposal was a maximum sum of £136,500 and that that sum could not be modified by reference to the schedule of rates agreed. The second adjudication decision addressed the parties’ dispute regarding the payment of Waldeck’s invoice. The adjudicator decided that Waldeck was entitled to receive a sum of £184,142.81 plus VAT. In reaching his decision, the adjudicator held that he had taken cognisance of his earlier decision so as not to transgress on or open up any matter that had already been decided. As such, he held that the second decision was entirely consistent with parties’ agreement and in accordance with the first adjudication decision. Waldeck sought summary judgment on its application to enforce an adjudication decision against Decomo UK Limited for the specified sum of £184,142.81 plus VAT. Decomo resisted enforcement of the second decision outlining that it was contrary to the first decision which limits the payment for the works at £136,500.

Jefford J enforced the adjudicator’s second decision and ordered Decomo to pay the sum due. Further, she held that the adjudicator’s second decision did not contradict the first decision. The second decision did not deal with the £136,500 payment cap as the first decision related to works in the Waldeck’s fee proposal. Jefford J recognised that there was some potential lack of clarity where the cap at £136,500 may indicate that the amount of work was not to be re-measured. However, it was held that such ambiguity was placed beyond doubt in the first decision which stated that the sum only referred to the works included in the fee proposal. Further, the decision outlined that the final account would be settled separately using the same approach.

This case contains no new law and turns on its facts. However, it is clear that the adjudicators have substantial autonomy when determining the disputes being referred as the adjudicator was able to decide on the effects of his earlier decision.