This was is an appeal from the TCC decision of HHJ Mackay, who dismissed RJT’s claim for a declaration that the construction contract was not an “agreement in writing” within s107. The Adjudicator had decided that the oral contract was sufficiently evidenced in writing by drawings, schedules and minutes of the meeting etc. HHJ Mackay agreed.

However, the appeal was allowed by the Court of Appeal. Lord Justice Ward and Lord Justice Robert Walker held that all of the terms of the construction contract had to be evidenced in writing. It was not sufficient for merely the material terms, such as the identity of the parties, nature of the work and price, to be recorded in writing. Further, even if they were wrong, the documents relied upon in this particular case were described as “wholly insufficient”. Auld J considered that only the material terms of the agreement were required, and therefore trivial or unrelated issues did not need to be recorded. But his approach was not shared by the majority. So on one view, all of the terms of the contract need to be recorded in writing in order that a dispute under any contract can be referred to adjudication.