During the course of an adjudication between BAL and Taylor Woodrow, the Adjudicator sought legal advice. Although he sought the parties consent to do so (which was provided) he failed to tell the parties when he was going to meet his legal advisors, what material he would be providing to them, or even if the advice he received would be in writing. The Adjudicator found in BAL’s favour but his decision did not disclose the legal advice he had received.

BAL sought to enforce the Adjudicator’s decision which Taylor Woodrow resisted on the grounds that the Adjudicator had breached the principles of natural justice by reaching a conclusion on a material question of law without disclosing the legal advice that he had received. BAL argued that the Adjudicator's procedure had been transparent and fair.

The Court agreed that there had been a breach of the principles of natural justice and refused to enforce the Adjudicator’s decision as:

i) There had been no relevant acquiescence by omission or conduct which could lead one to conclude that the procedure followed had been fair and not in breach of the principles of natural justice.

ii) Acquiescence as to an Adjudicator's procedure which, on the face of it breached the principles of natural justice, would have to be clear, informed and unambiguous.

iii) Taylor Woodrow had established that there was a strong arguable case that there had been a breach of the principles of natural justice.

iv) The whole of the award, and not merely part of it, was arguably without jurisdiction and to sever the award would involve a review of the law and factual basis of the Adjudicator's award which the Court was not entitled to carry out. The claim related solely to the Adjudicator's award which was tainted by the jurisdiction challenge in its entirety and there was no basis for an interim payment to BAL.