The employer was successful in a dispute between it and Pring. Pring then brought an adjudication to recover these losses from its subcontractor, CJ Hafner. CJ Hafner were engaged by Pring under a simple form of subcontract to erect support steelwork. However CJ Hafner failed to complete the works and abandoned them. The same Adjudicator was appointed in Pring’s adjudication with CJ Hafner as had been appointed in its adjudication with the employer.

Exercising their rights under paragraph 8(2) of the Scheme, CJ Hafner objected to the Adjudicator’s appointment as they had not given the required consent and feared prejudice due to the Adjudicator’s prior knowledge from the previous adjudication. CJ Hafter also objected to the proposal that their adjudication run parallel with another adjudication between Pring and another subcontractor. The Adjudicator did not resign.

The Judge refused to enforce the Adjudicator’s decision. Although the Adjudicator had been validly made, a condition of this appointment was the parties’ consent. CJ Hafner were entitled to withhold their consent and the Adjudicator was incorrect in going ahead with the parties’ consent.

On the question of bias, the Judge stated that there was a real risk that the Adjudicator carried forward his judgments from the earlier adjudication, which was evident by the fact that the exact sums awarded to the Employer in the first adjudication, were then claimed against CJ Hafner and awarded by the Adjudicator to Pring.