In this case there were three construction projects in respect of the refurbishment of local authority accommodation. The main contractor, Kendall, sought tenders for the electrical work from Mast. The parties considered there might be a partnering agreement, but that never materialised. Quotations were provided for several multi-storey blocks. In respect of Vale House, the contractor by letter instructed Mast to survey the flats in order to establish the full extent of the work in accordance with a revised quotation submitted on 11 April 2005. Surveys were carried out and work was carried out. Disputes arose in respect of payment. The adjudicator considered that there was no contract in writing resigned.

Kendall refused to make payment on the basis that there was no construction contract in writing. The single issue in this dispute was whether there was a contract in writing under the Act such that adjudication was available for any disputes arising under that contract.

Mr Justice Jackson reviewed the chronology of exchanges between the parties in respect of the quotations. However, upon examination there were substantial differences between the rates attached to the quotations. The interim payments were based upon the rates of the 9 May, whilst the claim referred to adjudication was based on the rates of 11 April.

It seemed impossible to discern any agreement between the parties. The documents therefore did not satisfy the requirements of Section 107 of the Act. Further, it seemed unlikely that there was a contract between the parties, although Mast might be entitlement to claim upon a quantum meruit basis. The same analysis applied in respect of the other two projects. Mast was therefore not entitled to a declaration that there was a contract in writing for the purposes of the Act.