William Verry (Glazing Systems) Ltd v Furlong Homes Ltd

In adjudication, the scope of the dispute is determined by the parties’ Notice of Adjudication and Referral Notice, construed with commercial common sense. A responding party is generally entitled to deploy all proper points needed to defend an unqualified claim, even if those points refine or expand an earlier claim. A detailed response is not necessarily a new dispute merely because it seeks a later extension of time or provides fuller evidence. The court should adopt a robust approach to the dispute’s substance and context, while protecting against genuine ambush and procedural unfairness. The adjudicator’s decision remained binding until final determination by the court.

By a Part 8 claim, William Verry (Glazing Systems) Ltd sought a declaration that an adjudicator’s decision concerning the parties’ construction-contract final account was valid and binding. Furlong Homes Ltd challenged the decision, alleging that the adjudicator had exceeded his jurisdiction by considering a new extension-of-time claim and had acted unfairly.

Furlong had referred a broad dispute concerning the final account, extension of time, liquidated damages and delay-related costs. Verry’s response advanced a detailed claim for an extension of time to 27 July 2004, whereas its earlier correspondence had claimed an extension to 24 June 2004. The central issues were whether the response introduced a new claim, whether it fell within the dispute referred, and whether the adjudication process caused procedural unfairness.

1. Declaration granted. The adjudicator’s decision was binding until the matters addressed in it were finally determined by the court.
2. Section D of Verry’s response was not a new claim. It was a fuller explanation, refinement and enhancement of the earlier extension-of-time claim. The underlying delay events remained essentially the same; the later completion date reflected continuing works and additional supporting information.
3. Even if Section D had been a new claim, it fell within the dispute referred. The Notice of Adjudication and Referral Notice asked the adjudicator, in unqualified terms, to determine the correct or appropriate extension of time. They did not restrict the inquiry to Verry’s earlier letter or to information previously supplied.
4. The court adopted a robust, commercially sensible approach to identifying the dispute. The restrictive approach in Edmund Nuttall Ltd v R G Carter Ltd was distinguishable on its extreme facts and had not generally been followed. The approach in AWG Construction Services Ltd v Rockingham Motor Speedway Ltd, requiring attention to the dispute agreed and the basis on which it was referred, was consistent with the circumstances here.
5. As the responding party, Verry was entitled to deploy all proper points in defending Furlong’s assertion that its extension of time ended on 2 February 2004.
6. The alleged procedural unfairness was not established. Furlong had adequate time to answer Section D, and the adjudicator had sufficient material to decide the dispute. The complaint concerning additional documents did not show a real possibility of injustice.