The pursuers were seeking the sum of £8,730 from the Defender, together with interest and expenses. The parties agreed that there was a contract within the meaning of the HGCRA and that the first invoice for £1,000 had been paid. The pursuer agreed that two further invoices had not been paid. There was a counterclaim for £40,000 brought by the Defender.

The parties could not agree on whether the basic payment mechanisms in the contract were adequate and complied with Section 110 as provided an "adequate mechanism for determining what payments became due under the contract, and when". If the payment mechanism was not adequate then the Scheme would apply.

Sheriff Derek O'Carrol held that in his view the question as to whether a contractual mechanism was "adequate" was a question of fact not law. He stated at paragraph 21:

"What will be adequate in some cases will be inadequate in others. Large complex construction operations will no doubt require complex highly structured mechanisms. Equally, simple, straightforward construction operations may be satisfactory served by a very simply mechanism. I do not accept that I can determine as a matter of law whether the contractual mechanism in this case is adequate, whether by reference to the scheme or otherwise. The adequacy of the mechanism, is a question of fact thought, no doubt, some assistance may be gained in the final assessment by reference to the scheme."

He concluded that he could not determine the final question at this stage in the proceedings, that could only be done after proof.