The claimant, Deluxe Art & Theme Ltd, sought by way of summary judgment to enforce two decisions made by an adjudicator, Mr Matthew Bastone.  Coulson J in this case enforced one adjudication decision but refused to enforce the other decision. In accordance with paragraph 8(1) of Part I of the Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998 (SI 1998/649) (Scheme for Construction Contracts 1998), an adjudicator could not adjudicate on more than one dispute at the same time without the parties’ consent.

As outlined in the Willmott Dixon Housing Ltd (formerly Inspace Partnership Ltd) v Newlon Housing Trust [2013] EWHC 798 (TCC), [2013]  B.L.R. 325, the Housing Grants,  Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 s.108(1) and the Construction  Industry Council Model Adjudication Procedure fifth edition granted permission for a party to a construction contract to give more than one notice of adjudication, each referring to a dispute, and for each adjudication to be referred to the same adjudicator. Further support was provided by the fact that a party may refer a dispute “at any time” when giving effect of section 108(2)(a) of the Construction Act 1996. In the absence of a referral notice, a party could sufficiently set out its statement of case in other documents to give the adjudicator jurisdiction. However, the TCC distinguished Willmott adjudication considerations as the adjudications in the instant case were conducted under the Scheme for Construction Contracts.

It is clear that separate dispute referrals to the same adjudicator at the same time will have to cease unless the parties have agreed to do otherwise where the Scheme for Construction Contracts 1998 applies.  Party autonomy to agree on such measures is reflected by section 108(1) of the Construction Act 1996 where a party has the right to refer a “dispute” to adjudication. The Scheme for Construction Contracts 1998 also refers to dispute in the singular.

Nonetheless, if parties want the same adjudicator to decide a dispute, they may do so by waiting for adjudicator’s decision on one referral before proceeding with their subsequent referral.

Interestingly, Coulson J also gave guidance on document submissions. The court warned parties about the number of documents filed for purported “simple enforcement dispute”. In doing so, Coulson J outlined that six lever arch files of documents are excessive where four were not referred to. It was noted that generally one lever arch file of documents are required for such enforcement proceedings and outlined that “unless the parties and their solicitors cooperate properly and comply with the TCC Guide, the court will simply refuse to hear cases with such promiscuous and unnecessary bundling”.