Ballast engaged Surplant under a sub-contract to undertake highway adoption work. That agreement incorporated the JCT Standard Form of Building Contract with Contractor's Design 1998 Edition. In June 2002, discussions took place in respect of the final account. Valuation 8 was issued on 26 June 2002. The valuation arrived at Ballast's offices on 2 July. A meeting then took place two days later. On 5 July Surplant faxed a letter to Ballast stating that they were concerned about the valuation of their account. It stated that Ballast's Valuation No. 8 was grossly incorrect, and that they "must conclude that we are now in dispute". Several days later on 8 July 2002, a notice of intention to refer the differences to adjudication was issued. The Adjudicator issued a decision awarding Surplant a payment.

The defendant refused to pay on the basis that there was no dispute in respect of the matters referred to adjudication on the date of the notice of adjudication. Further, that the due date was 10 July 2002, and that the notice had been issued before that date.

HHJ MacKay concluded that the letter of 5 July was very strong evidence that the dispute had come into existence. There was therefore a dispute on 8 July when the notice of adjudication was issued. As a result, the Judge ordered that payment in the amount of the decision be made.

[Many thanks to Corbett Haselgrove Spurin of NADR for details of this case.]