Disputes arose between the parties. The Adjudicator determined that Mackenzie should pay Sherwood £12,803.14. Sherwood submitted a further application and successfully referred this dispute to adjudication. Sherwood then prepared a final account which claimed substantially the same as what had been claimed in the interim application previously dealt with save for the additional of a claim for loss and expense allegedly arising out of the delayed completion of the subcontract work. A further adjudication resulted.

At the enforcement hearing, the Judge gave the following guidance:

1. A decision of an Adjudicator whose validity is challenged as to its factual or legal conclusions or as to procedural error remains a decision that is both enforceable and should be enforced;
2. A decision that is erroneous, even if the error is disclosed by the reasons, will still not ordinarily be capable of being challenged and should, ordinarily, still be enforced;
3. A decision may be challenged on the ground that the Adjudicator was not empowered by the Act to make the decision, because there was no underlying construction contract between the parties or because he had gone outside his terms of reference;
4. The adjudication is intended to be a speedy process in which mistakes will inevitably occur. Thus, the Court should guard against characterising a mistaken answer to an issue, which is within an Adjudicator's jurisdiction, as being an excess of jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court should give a fair, natural and sensible interpretation to the decision in the light of the disputes that are the subject of the reference;
5. An issue as to whether a construction contract ever came into existence, which is one challenging the jurisdiction of the Adjudicator, so long as it is reasonably and clearly raised, must be determined by the Court on the balance of probabilities with, if necessary, oral and documentary evidence.

In this case, the Judge concluded that the two disputes were clearly different and therefore the Adjudicator’s decision was within his jurisdiction. Accordingly the Adjudicator’s decision was enforced.