This case concerned the issue of proceedings by an adjudicator for his fees. On the day the decision was due to be published the adjudicator had informed the parties that his mother had died and that although he was in a position to provide a draft decision later that day, he required an extension of time. Aardvark agreed to an extension of time. Simons objected to any decision being published that was not in its final form but made no comment on the request for an extension of time. The adjudicator duly issued his decision marked "draft for the parties' comment" and said that the final decision would be published in seven days.

Neither Simons nor Aardvark commented on the draft decision which was duly issued without amendment seven days later. As part of the decision, Simons was ordered to pay the adjudicator's fees. Simons then wrote to the adjudicator stating that the decision was late and so was not binding. Simons did not pay the fees and in defending the proceedings issued by the adjudicator sought a declaration that the decision was not capable of enforcement.

HHJ Seymour QC unsurprisingly first of all found that the draft decision was not one which was capable of enforcement by the court. However, he also concluded that the final decision, the one which was seven days late, was binding and capable of enforcement by the court. In other words, the failure here to produce a decision within the required timescale did not deprive the adjudicator of jurisdiction