Williams (t/a Sanclair Construction) v Noor (t/a India Kitchen)

Adjudication agreements and notices should be construed commercially and in context. A misdescription of the referring party does not invalidate an adjudication where the parties intended to refer the dispute under the underlying construction contract, the true parties were identifiable, and no prejudice resulted.

The naming requirements in paragraph 1(3) of the Scheme for Construction Contracts are directory, not mandatory. Errors of fact, law or procedure by an adjudicator do not ordinarily justify refusing enforcement. Enforcement may be resisted where there is a jurisdictional excess or serious breach of natural justice.

Sanclair Construction contracted with the defendant for building works under a JCT Minor Works Building Contract. The contract provided for adjudication under the Scheme for Construction Contracts. An adjudicator awarded sums for the works and his fees, but the defendant failed to pay.

The claimant, Mrs Williams, sought summary judgment to enforce the adjudicator’s decision. The defendant argued that the adjudication had been brought by Mr Williams, her husband, rather than by Mrs Williams, who owned the business. He also challenged the notice of adjudication and relied on the Business Names Act 1985.

1. Enforcement. Summary judgment was entered for the claimant. The alleged errors in the adjudicator’s decision were not jurisdictional and had been rightly abandoned. Errors of fact, law or procedure would not ordinarily prevent enforcement pending final determination of the underlying dispute.
2. Identity of the adjudication parties. The adjudication agreement was concluded on 15 June 2007 between Mr Noor, Sanclair and the adjudicator. In context, Sanclair meant the same party as in the underlying contract: Mrs Sandra Williams trading as Sanclair Construction. Later references to Mr Williams trading as Sanclair were a misdescription. The court could review the evidence on the summary judgment application without conducting a mini-trial, applying robust common sense and considering the evidence in the round.
3. Notice of adjudication. Paragraph 1(3) of the Scheme was directory. Its practical purpose was to provide sufficient information for the appointment of an adjudicator. The omission of Mrs Williams’s name did not invalidate the notice because the parties were identifiable and Mr Noor suffered no prejudice.
4. Business Names Act 1985. Mrs Williams had breached section 4 by failing to state the proprietor’s details on certain business documents. However, section 5 did not assist Mr Noor because he suffered no financial loss caused by that breach. The costs of the adjudication would have been incurred in any event. The court also indicated that, if necessary, it would have exercised its discretion to permit the proceedings to continue.
5. The court declared that Mrs Williams and Mr Noor were the parties to the adjudication. Judgment was entered for £32,952.54 plus interest, and for £18,741.96 in respect of the adjudicator’s fees, payable into court pending further directions. The defendant was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs.

First instance decision. No earlier appellate decision is stated in the judgment.