JWH had engaged GBM under a subcontract for the fabrication and erection of steelwork. The works were delayed and GBM had to accelerate the steelwork erection. GBM submitted a claim for additional works and variations. JWH responded with a claim for contra charges. The dispute was referred to adjudication and the adjudicator awarded GBM approx £24,000. JWH refused to pay so GBM sought to enforce the adjudicator’s award.

JWH resisted enforcement on 2 grounds:

1. the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction to make the decision because there was no dispute, the dispute having been compromised prior to the purported referral to adjudication;
2. the way the adjudication proceeded infringed natural justice as JWH was put at a significant and irremediable disadvantage as a result of not being provided with certain critical documentation by their solicitors during the course of the adjudication and having become aware that such was the case, the adjudicator failed to take appropriate steps to enable JWH to deal with the documentation fully and properly in presenting its case.

The Judge rejected JWH’s argument and enforced the adjudicator’s award on the following grounds:

1. On the basis of the inter-party correspondence it was clear that there was no compromise. Accordingly, the adjudicator had full jurisdiction to deal with the matter because it was common ground that there was a dispute between the parties. In addition, by virtue of the lack of objection to the adjudicator having jurisdiction, there had been an ad hoc agreement by the parties to the effect that the adjudicator had jurisdiction to make a binding decision on the issue;
2.  The fact that the documents had not been provided to JWH did not place them at an unfair disadvantage. There was nothing in the adjudicator’s decision to suggest that the course taken by the adjudicator could arguably be said to involve any form of procedural unfairness (particularly in light of the time restraints in the adjudication process – the Judge observed that the adjudicator had to deal with the case as best he could within the constraints of that timetable). Although he was aware that JWH had some problems with missing paper work, the adjudicator had satisfied himself that GBM had done what they were required to do by way of service of the documentation on JWH’s solicitors. In addition, JWH had been invited to raise the matter further before the adjudication meeting but failed to do so. In the circumstances, there was simply nothing more the adjudicator could have done.

The Judge also rejected the order of a stay of execution. Whilst GBM’s financial position was deemed to be at a high risk of insolvency according to credit ratings, it had significantly improved (with a continued improvement predicted by their accountants) and therefore the order was not necessary.