The claimant, Norwest Holst, entered into a written contract on 26 October 2005 with the defendant for various civil engineering and building works, including the design and construction of a casting pit for a steel production facility. A dispute arose and the claimant referred it to adjudication. The defendant claimed that the adjudicator did not have jurisdiction as the works were not a 'construction operation' as defined by s.105(1) of the HGCRA. Section 105(2)(c) states:

"The following operations are not construction operations within the meaning of this Part ... (c) assembly, installation or demolition of plant or machinery, or erection or demolition of steelwork for the purposes of supporting or providing access to plant or machinery, on a site where the primary activity is ... (ii) the production, transmission, processing or bulk storage (other than warehousing) of chemicals, pharmaceuticals, oil, gas, steel or food and drink."

The claimant conceded that the primary activity on site was the production, transmission, processing or bulk storage of steel. The court held that the operations which formed the subject matter of the contract were 'construction operations' as defined within s.105(1) of the HGCRA, and not plant or machinery as per s.105(2)(c). The adjudicator did therefore have jurisdiction.