There were three adjudications between Quietfield Limited (employer) and Vascroft Contractors Limited (contractor). During the works, Vascroft made two applications for an extension of time. In the first adjudication they sought an extension of time, but the adjudicator refused to declare that Vascroft were entitled to the extension of time. In the third adjudication Quietfield claimed liquidated damages in respect of the contractor’s delay. Vascroft responded claiming an extension of time. A second notice of adjudication was not pursued. In the third adjudication they submitted a substantial 400 page document setting out numerous causes of delay. The adjudicator refused to consider Vascroft’s submission on the basis that the extension of time had already been determined in the first adjudication.

Vascroft argued in these proceedings that the adjudicator’s decision should not be enforced because the adjudicator had breached the rules of natural justice by refusing to consider Vascroft’s submission in respect of the extension of time.

Mr Justice Jackson reviewed case law involving multiple adjudications in respect of similar issues (Emcor Drake & Scull Limited v Costain Construction [2004] EWHC 2439 (TCC), David McLean Contractors Limited v the Albany Building Limited and William Very (Glazing Systems) Limited v Furlong Homes Limited [2005] EWHC 138 (TCC)) he concluded that four principles should apply in respect of successive adjudications in relation to extensions of time:

1. If the contract permits successive applications for an extension of time on different grounds then, if dissatisfied, that issue can be referred to successive adjudications. The dispute will constitute the difference between contentions of the aggrieved party and the decision of the architect or contract administrator;

2. If successive applications for extensions of time are made on the same ground then this cannot be referred to successive adjudications;

3. If a contractor is resisting a claim for liquidated damages then the contractor may by way of defence rely upon an entitlement to an extension of time; and

4. A contractor cannot rely by way of defence in an adjudication upon an alleged entitlement to an extension of time, which has already been considered and rejected in a previous adjudication.

In this case Mr Justice Jackson concluded that the 400 page document was substantially different from the initial claims made for an extension of time in the first adjudication. As a result the adjudicator should have considered Vascroft’s substantive defence, but he had failed to do so. On this basis, Mr Justice Jackson refused to enforce the adjudicator’s decision even on a temporary basis.