1. There was a dispute about the material content of the contract;
2. They contracted with the limited company, not Mr Wallace personally; and/or
3. The architect had fabricated documents which breached the Value Added Tax Act 1994 and the Business Names Act 1985.

The proceedings and the adjudication had progressed on the basis that the RIBA SFA/99 applied. The Defendant was now arguing that they did not agree a manuscript amendment to Clause 5.6 referring to the limited company, but instead contracted with Mr Wallace’s individual. Various invoices contain the VAT registration number used by Mr Wallace as a sole trader, rather than a limited company.
Her Honour Frances Kirkham found that this point had not been taken during the course of the adjudication and that the Defendant had no real prospect of succeeding in their defence that the contracting party was actually Mr Wallace rather than the company. Her Honour found that the fraud and forgery point in respect of the invoices was a startling proposition, which failed. As a result, the Adjudicator had jurisdiction to make the decision.