Gibson was employed under four contracts with the defendant, Makro, for the carrying out of shopfitting services. Gibson, sought a declaration that the agreements in respect of the shopfitting works were "construction operations" within the meaning of section 105 of the Act. HH Judge Richard Seymour QC held that shopfitting was not a "construction operation" within the Act as the words "forming part of the land" in section 105(1)(a) introduced into the Act the current law relating to fixtures. In this instance the items supplied by Gibson were not fixtures, the "shopfitting" works conducted by it were not "construction operations" and therefore were not subject to adjudication under the Act.