The claimant, Amey Wye Valley Ltd, had contracted to provide the defendant, the County of Herefordshire District Council, with highway-maintenance services. The dispute arose between the parties concerning a contractual provision for the adjustment of the claimant's fees to take into account inflation and was subsequently referred to adjudication.

The first adjudicator concluded that the parties had intended that at the start of each calendar year an "average Baxter increase" would be calculated for the previous 12-month period and that the amount of the average increase would be added to the Baxter index for January. Both parties were satisfied with that decision but they could not agree on its financial consequences. The matter was referred to a second adjudicator, who found in favour of the defendant and concluded that there had been a substantial overpayment to the claimant which should be repaid to the defendant.

The claimant started Part 8 proceedings seeking certain declarations but those proceedings were stayed by consent to allow the parties to settle their dispute. Once the stay was lifted, the defendant applied for summary judgment under CPR 24 to enforce the decision of the second adjudicator.

Fraser J held that the second adjudicator had not exceeded his jurisdiction and the defendant was entitled to have the second adjudicator’s decision, in the sum of £10 million, enforced.

Firstly, the court held that, the second adjudicator had jurisdiction to determine that dispute, regardless of whether he made mistakes in doing so, provided he was resolving the dispute referred to him and not re-deciding something that was not before him because it had already been decided by the first adjudicator.

Secondly, Fraser J had to consider the proper approach to the interpretation of second adjudicator’s decision, which had become final and binding prior to the second adjudication before the first adjudicator.

The judge held that although the second adjudicator, who responsible for the drafting, was not a party to the contract, the parties chose to accept it and that “the usual principles of contractual interpretation would apply, set down in the well-known cases such as Arnold v Britton [2015] AC 1619, Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank [2011] 1 WLR 2900 and Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896.”

Thirdly, the parties agreed there was an error in the second adjudicator's calculations but disagreed over its financial consequences. The court rejected the claimant’s argument that the second adjudicator's decision should be severed or that it should be given leave to defend the amount up to the error.

This case is a useful example of the courts dealing with the consequences of serial adjudication even if it was complicated by the fact that the previous adjudicator’s decision had become final and binding on the parties. Also it emphasises the fact that the starting point in serial adjudication cases will usually be the adjudicator’s view on whether one dispute is the same or substantially the same. Finally, it is important that the court gives due respect to the adjudicator’s decision and “as stated in Brown v Complete Building Solutions, it is necessary to consider the terms, scope and extent of the dispute previously referred, and the terms, scope and extent of the earlier decision”.