Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Mott MacDonald Ltd

An adjudicator’s jurisdiction is confined by the scope of the pre-existing dispute. The referring party cannot enlarge that jurisdiction merely by drafting a broad notice of adjudication. However, where correspondence fairly shows that the parties dispute the true meaning of a contractual phrase, the adjudicator may formulate and apply an interpretation different from either party’s preferred construction. A court determining an application for summary judgment cannot resolve disputed factual questions about compliance with the adjudicator’s decision. It may nevertheless determine a live jurisdiction issue and grant a declaration where that issue has been fully argued and resolving it will narrow the dispute.

Multiplex sought summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator’s decision concerning its contractual right under Schedule 4B to a novation agreement to access Mott’s records relating to engineering services for Wembley Stadium.

The adjudicator had determined the meaning of “all records pertinent to the Services”, held that Multiplex’s document requests fell within that meaning, rejected confidentiality objections, and ordered access. Mott disputed the adjudicator’s jurisdiction but had provided substantial documentation. Multiplex alleged that the disclosure was incomplete and sought specific performance, an injunction, damages and a declaration that the decision was binding.

The court had to determine whether the adjudicator had exceeded his jurisdiction and whether compliance could be resolved summarily.

1. Jurisdiction. The adjudicator’s jurisdiction depended on the scope of the pre-existing dispute. The authorities Fastrack Contractors Limited v Morrison Construction Limited [2000] 1 BLR 168 and Edmund Nuttall Limited v RG Carter Limited [2002] 1 BLR 312 illustrated that principle. A referring party cannot enlarge the jurisdiction by an unduly broad or optimistic notice.
2. On a fair reading of the correspondence, the parties were disputing the true meaning of “all records pertinent to the services”. Mott had asserted that Multiplex’s construction was too wide, while declining to state its own construction. The dispute was therefore not confined to accepting or rejecting Multiplex’s proposed definition.
3. An adjudicator may reach a decision different from the position advanced by either party where that decision resolves the pre-existing dispute. The adjudicator acted within his jurisdiction by formulating his own interpretation of the contractual phrase. His decision was binding under clause 24.7 of Schedule 4B until final determination by agreement or arbitration.
4. Compliance and relief. Whether Mott had fully complied with the decision raised disputed factual issues concerning the documents and electronic material made available. Those issues could not be resolved on written evidence under CPR Part 24. The court therefore refused summary judgment for specific performance, an injunction or damages.
5. The jurisdiction issue remained live, had been fully argued, and was sufficiently pleaded. Consistently with the policy of resolving every live issue capable of resolution at the relevant stage, the court granted a declaration, subject to modification of its precise wording. The balance of Multiplex’s application was dismissed.