The claimant, Stellite Construction Ltd served its notice of adjudication claiming liquidated damages. The defendant, Vascroft Contractors Ltd denied the claimant’s entitlement and rejected the suggestion that the claimant had served a valid non-completion certificate.

The defendant argued that the contractual mechanism had broken down and time was "at large" thus it was entitled to an extension of time. The adjudicator decided that time for completion had been set at large and that no liquidated damages were due.

The claimant applied for declaratory relief, arguing that the adjudicator had breached the rules of natural justice when he decided time was at large for the reasons he gave (Issue 1) and exceeded his jurisdiction when he decided that a reasonable time for completion was 5 March 2016 (Issue 2).

Mrs Justice Carr dismissed the claim for declaratory relief on Issue 1 and granted it on Issue 2 so that part of the decision was severed. The Judge held that there was no breach of the rules of natural justice in the adjudicator holding that time was at large for the reasons that he gave; and the adjudicator acted outside his jurisdiction in holding that a reasonable time for completion was 5 March 2016.

In regards to Issue 1, Mrs Justice Carr placed heavy reliance on a passage from the decision of Edwards-Stuart J in Roe Brickwork Ltd v Wates Construction Ltd [2013] EWHC 3417 (TCC) which stated: 

"…An adjudicator can reach a decision on a point of importance on the material before him on a basis for which neither party has contended, provided that the parties are aware of the relevant material and that the issues to which it gave rise had been fairly canvassed before the adjudicator..."

The question of whether the adjudicator had breached natural justice would therefore turn on the facts, and in particular “whether the issues to which the material relating to whether time was at large gave rise had been 'fairly canvassed'." The Judge found that both sides had been given ample opportunity to canvass the issue.

The focus of the adjudicator's decision was Mr Justice Jackson’s propositions from Multiplex Constructions (UK) Limited v Honeywell Control Systems Limited (No.2) (2007) EWHC 447 (TCC). The fact that each side had approached the case from a slightly different angle would not mean that the adjudicator’s decision was in breach of natural justice.

Mrs Justice Carr held that the adjudicator was not applying “a new authority or line of authorities”, or "external information, fact or expertise" that he did not share with the parties. Rather “he was applying ventilated law to the material before him” where “the parties had … approached the issues on the facts from "slightly different angles".

In regards to Issue 2, Mrs Justice Carr found that the adjudicator had exceeded jurisdiction: “the Adjudicator's reasoning may have been the logical next step, given his finding that time was at large”. The adjudicator had material before him to decide the issue, but not the jurisdiction.

The practical effect of this case is that parties who suspect part but not all of an adjudicator's decision is tainted in some way may be able to sever it.