The contractors, Patrick Birchall (T/a Pier 1 Metalworks) agreed to construct a steel frame for a new workshop for West Morland Car Sales in Kendall. The contract was made orally, although there was evidence to support that contract. A dispute arose and the matter was referred to adjudication. The Adjudicator decided that the contractor should be paid the sum of £45,087.85. The defendants refused to pay. The contractors brought a summary judgment application. The defendants contended that the contract was an oral one, and so the Act did not apply. They also argued pursuant to the Human Rights Act, that they were being treated unfairly as in effect the enforcement process of adjudication excluded a proper consideration of their defence.

HHJ Mackay referred to section 107(2) of the Act and considered that the contract was sufficiently evidenced in writing, as the Act did not require the contract to be "wholly evidenced in writing". He considered that it was a matter of degree, but in this case there was a contract. In respect of the second point, he decided that the Human Rights Act had no application whatsoever. He therefore gave the relief requested by the contractor. HHJ Mackay refers to RJT Consulting v DM Engineering, in which he was the first instance judge. Note however that this case was decided in November last year, and therefore before the Court of Appeal ruling in respect of RJT.