The claimant was a building contractor who subcontracted with the defendant in respect of window works at a site in Harlow. The subcontract was based on the DOM/2 form of contract and fell within the meaning of Part 2 of the HGCRA 1996. In the course of the works, the claimant became concerned about the progress, quality of material and workmanship and, finally, terminated the sub-contract. Other contractors were engaged to complete the unfinished work or to remedy defective work undertaken by the defendant.

The claimant gave notice of adjudication seeking to recover additional costs incurred due to defendant’s non-compliance with the sub-contract. However, the determination of the final account was not covered by the adjudication. The adjudicator awarded the claimant a sum of £12,386.32. In this context, he based his calculation on a final account value of £119,210.89.

The defendant challenged the enforcement of the decision on the ground that determining a total account figure as starting point was outside the adjudicator’s jurisdiction. The Court accepted this allegation. HHJ Kirkham held that the adjudicator had no jurisdiction to take the figure of £119,210.89 as an unchallenged starting point. In her view, the figure had not been accepted by the defendant. In addition, the determination of a final account had been expressly excluded from the adjudication in the notice of adjudication. Accordingly, entitlement to summary judgment was denied.