Thames Water engaged Amec under a framework agreement. Amec issued an aggregated payment application, and Thames Water had issued an aggregated withholding notice, in accordance with the agreement. Amec referred to the issue to adjudication to determine the validity of the set-offs/defences Thames Water had put in the withholding notice. The adjudicator found in Amec’s favour.

At enforcement, Thames Water argued that:

1. The dispute did not arise under the framework agreement but under each individual works package. Accordingly, the adjudicator did not have the jurisdiction to make a money decision. In addition, the ICE adjudication procedure, which was incorporated into the agreement, did not comply with the Act and/or the adjudicator purported to deal with more than one dispute at once;

2. The adjudicator had breached the rules of natural justice by dealing with a large and complex dispute, or by not specifically referring to Thames Water's second response in his decision, sent two days before the decision was due; and

3. The adjudicator made an error and/or failed to deal with Thames Water’s defence to Amec’s claims, such that he failed to answer the correct question.

In enforcing the adjudicator’s decision, the judge found that:

1. The dispute did arise under the agreement, and not the individual works packages. Amec’s applications for payment arose as aggregated applications, as did Thames Water’s withholding notices, and were issued under the agreement. Therefore, as the dispute arose under the agreement, there was only one dispute. Further, as the parties had agreed that the framework agreement was not a construction contract under the Act, the ICE adjudication procedure did not have to comply with the Act;

2. The fact that the dispute was large and complex did not, of itself, mean that the adjudicator had breached the rules of natural justice. In any event, the adjudication was not sufficiently large or complex. The specific complaint in this case, regarding Thames Water’s second submission, was not a breach of the rules of natural justice. Whilst the adjudicator could not ignore the second submission, he was not obliged to give it detailed consideration. An adjudicator’s overriding obligation is to complete his decision within the time limit:

“I say that because, in my judgment, in an adjudication with a tight timetable, an adjudicator is not obliged to consider in detail a second round submission or pleading, served very late in the adjudication process. His overriding obligation is to complete his decision within the time limit. If that means that he cannot read or digest in detail a document provided just over two days before that decision had to be finalised and provided to the parties, then that is simply one of the consequences of the adjudication process. In adjudication, a requirement to consider every round of the parties' submissions in detail, which might be required of a judge or an arbitrator pursuant to the rules of natural justice, will always be tempered by the adjudicator's overriding obligation to comply with the time limits.”

In any event, the adjudicator had dealt fairly and properly with the dispute.

3. The question the adjudicator had to, and did, consider was what was due to Amec, after taking into account Thames Water’s set offs. The adjudicator had answered the right question in the correct way. Even if he had answered the right question in the wrong way the decision would still be enforceable. Just because the adjudicator did not give reasons for the thousands of smaller items, did not mean he did not take them into consideration.

The judge also indicated that, although it was unnecessary to decide the issue, the case may have been an appropriate case for severance of the adjudicator’s decision.