The defendant opposed a part 24 summary enforcement of an adjudicators decision, arguing that the adjudicator had not considered the defendant's counterclaim. The adjudicator had decided that he did not have jurisdiction to deal with the defendant's counterclaim.

Judge Gilliland QC took the view that the defendant was essentially seeking to set-off the amount of the counterclaim, and pay only the balance. He reiterated that the court will not look at the merits of the case, but will enforce the decision unless there is some valid jurisdictional challenge. The adjudication was conducted under the TeCSA Rules 1999 (Version 1.3) which provides that the adjudicator can determine the points which must be included in the adjudication (Rule 11(ii)) and may rule on his own substantive jurisdiction (Rule 12). Gilliland held that the adjudicator's ruling as to his own jurisdiction was binding, and that the general principle set out by Dyson J in Bouygues v Dahl Jensen did not apply to the TeCSA Rules as the Rules provided the adjudicator with jurisdiction to consider and decide whether he has jurisdiction or not. The decision was therefore binding.