The claimant, Dean & Dyball Construction Limited, were seeking to enforce the decision of an adjudicator by which Kenneth Grubb Associates Limited were to pay £315,390.14 together with interest. Dean & Dyball had entered into a contract with West Somerset District Council to construct a marina at Watchet in Somerset. The installation of an impounding gate was required. Grubb was the consulting engineer engaged by Dean & Dyball. Summary judgment was resisted by Grubb on 5 grounds:

1. The claim referred to adjudication was a different claim, and therefore related to a different dispute;
2. The contract was not "in writing" as required by Section 107 of the Act;
3. The dispute had not been validly referred;
4. The Adjudicator made an error of law by answering the wrong question; and
5. There was a breach of natural justice.

HHJ Seymour QC held that during the exchanges of correspondence a contract had formed on the ACE conditions, which incorporated the CIC Model Adjudication Procedure. The parties were therefore bound by contract to follow that procedure, regardless of the application of Section 107 of the Act. The dispute concerned whether the gate functioned satisfactorily and alleged negligence on the part of Grubb. The dispute had not been set out in detail in the notice, but adequate notice had been given.

As the Adjudicator had answered the negligent point put to him, he had not made an error of law.

Grubb argued that natural justice had been breached as the Adjudicator had conducted separate interviews with the parties and their experts. The CIC procedure permitted an adjudicator to meet the parties separately. The Adjudicator met with each expert in turn and produced a note of that meeting which was openly available to all parties. HHJ Seymour QC held that whilst this procedure could operate unfairly, and was not satisfactory, he was satisfied that this did not happen in the present case. He therefore enforced the decision.