In May 1997, Workplace and E Squared agreed that, for the purposes of a tender, Workplace would be a main contractor with E Squared to be its subcontractor. Disputes arose that E Squared submitted to adjudication. Workplace argued that the contract was made on or about 9 October 1997 or alternatively by 17 March 1998. E Squared argued that the contract was concluded at a meeting on or about 20 May 1998 and by 5 June 1998 when the form of subcontract was agreed. Workplace applied to the court seeking declarations as to the term of the contract; that the appointed Adjudicator had no jurisdiction and an injunction restraining E Squared from continuing the adjudication reference.

On the evidence, the Judge concluded that the contract was not ultimately concluded between the parties until 20 May at the earliest but certainly by 5 June. Therefore E Squared was not entitled to the declarations it sought. Further, the Judge was not persuaded that there is power to grant an injunction to restrain a party initiating a void reference and pursuing proceedings which themselves are void and which may give rise to a void and thus unenforceable adjudication decision. There did not appear to be any legal or equitable interest such as an injunction would protect. Further, in most adjudication cases it would be difficult to satisfy the threshold test of a serious question to be tried. Therefore, the balance of convenience lay with allowing the adjudication process to continue. If the Court granted the injunction without determining the issue of the date of the contract then it inexorably follows that it may be interfering in a valid adjudication to its detriment. This would frustrate the statutory scheme and also halt an adjudication by raising a case to the effect that the adjudication was void. It was for the Adjudicator to determine the date of the contract.