Norwest Holst was engaged by ABB to clad boilers in an area as part of the extension of an existing power station in Aberdeen. The site was cordoned off from the main site for health and safety as well as operational reasons. ABB sought a declaration that the Adjudicator did not have jurisdiction. The Judge held that the primary activity of the whole of the site was power generation, and therefore the Act did not apply. The Judge considered that section 105(2) should be read as a whole, and in the context of sections 104 and 105(1). Section 105(2)(c) required explicitly the identification of the site or the location of the activity, and identification of the primary or “dominant” activity on that site. His preference was that the regime should apply to all construction contracts on a site in respect of a particular project. He considered whether the installation of the insulation performed a “plant-like function” and concluded that the answer was “undoubtedly: Yes”. He dealt finally with the “temporal point”. Norwest argued that the subcontract did not relate to a site where the “primary activity is … power generation”. The term was “is” not “will be”. The Judge dismissed the distinction on the basis that the Act was drafted in the present tense and that Parliament could not have meant to draw an absurd distinction. Accordingly he held that the Act did not apply, and issued a mandatory order restraining Norwest from commencing an adjudication.