Vaughan were sub-contractors to Hinkins for certain mechanical works in connection with the alteration and modernisation of laboratories at the University of Readings. The terms were the DOM/1 1980 Edition with amendments, but as they contained no provision for adjudication Section 108(5) of the Act implied the Scheme into the contract.

Matters were referred to adjudication, a decision was issued, but Hinkins refused to make payment. They argued that the Adjudicator's decision was ultra vires in that the Adjudicator had failed to exhaust his jurisdiction by failing to take into account a set-off claim placed before him by Hinkins. As a result they requested the action to be sisted to allow judicial review proceedings to be raised. A central question was whether supervisor jurisdiction of the Court allowed the Court to sist the action, or alternatively whether the decision should be set aside ope exceptionis.

Lord Clarke held that Arbitrators were subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court, and so were Adjudicators as he could find no good reason for excluding them from that class. In English Law a distinction is between case of procedural invalidity on one hand, and substantive invalidity on the other. Difficult questions arise in respect of those cases which lay on the boundary. In those instances the Court has the discretion to require the defence to be pursued by judicial review proceedings. In conclusion, Lord Clarke repelled the plea in law that the Defendant could invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court. He did not decide whether separate proceedings should be allowed for judicial review.