Holt subcontracted work to Colt. Colt referred a dispute to adjudication and was unsuccessful as the Adjudicator decided he did not have power to decide matters of alternative valuation because of the terms of the referral notice. Colt referred a second dispute to adjudication and the Adjudicator made a decision in Colt’s favour. Holt challenged the Adjudicator’s jurisdiction on the basis that it was the same or substantially the same dispute within the meaning of paragraph 9(2) of the Scheme. Holt argued that the second adjudication involved a similar dispute with a small reduction in the figures, various words requesting the Adjudicator to award lower sums if he sees fit, some changes to the claim for interest and the costs of the adjudication and greater detail on the make-up of some claims. The Judge found that although the references to the Adjudicator may have related to the same matters arising out of contractual relations between the parties they did not relate to the same dispute. Although both adjudications concerned Colt’s entitlement to claim in respect of the same work, the notices of referral were crucially different.