The parties signed a letter of intent which stated that until the contract had been executed, the terms contained in the draft contract applied. The draft contract contained a schedule of amendments that included a proposal that, for the purposes of adjudication, Mr George Ashworth would be appointed as Adjudicator. A dispute arose and Mr Biscoe was appointed as Adjudicator. AMEC sought to enforce the Adjudicator’s decision.

Whitefriars resisted enforcement on the grounds that (i) the real dispute was whether Mr Biscoe had been correctly appointed under the terms of the contract, as the contract provided for the appointment of Mr Ashworth rather than Mr Biscoe; and (ii) the issue concerning the Adjudicator should be determined by an arbitrator.

The Court refused to enforce the decision, holding:

i) The clear effect of the letter of intent was that the work should be carried out upon the terms that Whitefriars, as writer of the letter, had proposed. Therefore, the Adjudicator appointed should have been Mr Ashworth.

ii) Whitefriars’ argument that the adjudication decision was one that Mr Biscoe was unauthorised to make (because he was the wrong Adjudicator) amounted to a dispute about enforcement and fell within the exception under the contract conditions. A dispute about enforcement must include a dispute about whether the decision was enforceable at all, for example, because it was not an authorised decision. The exception under the contract could not relate solely to the enforcement of a decision of a validly appointed Adjudicator, since that would exclude most of the grounds argued before the courts as to whether or not a decision was enforceable. The purpose of the contract conditions was to ensure that matters relating the enforcement should be severed from arbitration, which would be concerned with the underlying dispute.