The adjudication was conducted on a documents only basis. The adjudicator reached his decision and sent it out in draft form to the parties by email on 20 May 2003. He asked that his draft should be checked to see that all points had been dealt with. Following the making of some changes, the decision was signed on 22 May 2003, the date the decision was due. However, the decision was sent out by dx and only reached the parties on 23 May. The defendants said the decision fell outside the authority given to the adjudicator which was to "make" a decision by 22 May and that "make" means, under clause 39A.5.3 of the JCT Adjudication Rules, a decision which must reach the parties before the end of 22 May 2003.

HHJ LLoyd QC noted that adjudicators ought to be well aware of the importance of complying with the time limits set by Parliament which were, he said, crucial to the effectiveness of adjudication. Given today's instantaneous methods of transmission, the use of first class post or dx was archaic. Thus the contemporaneous duty to communicate a decision could and should easily be achieved by an adjudicator.

However, as here, an error by an adjudicator which resulted in a delay of one or two days was excusable and "within the tolerance and commercial practice that one must afford to the Act and to the contract". The decision here was valid and did not become invalid because of an error by the adjudicator in dispatching the decision, which meant that it did arrive within the time limit. However, there are limits to that judicial tolerance and HHJ LLoyd QC suggested that where an adjudicator cannot arrive at a decision within the period required then, before time runs out, further time should if possible be obtained.