GPS Marine Contractors Ltd v Ringway Infrastructure Services Ltd

On an application to enforce an adjudicator’s decision, summary judgment should be refused where a defence has a real, although weak, prospect of success and depends on disputed oral evidence. A general reservation of jurisdiction may preserve objections not specifically identified, provided its wording clearly maintains the reservation throughout the adjudication. An adjudicator’s decision remains temporarily binding despite an error of fact or law unless the court or the parties finally determine the dispute itself. A party cannot ordinarily recast matters known and raised during the adjudication as fraud in order to resist enforcement. Natural justice requires a fair opportunity to present the case, but the adjudicator may impose a strict timetable and refuse an unauthorised late rejoinder.

GPS sought summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator’s decision ordering Ringway to pay sums arising from dredging works at Ringway’s berth. Ringway resisted enforcement on grounds including compromise or withdrawal, referral of more than one dispute, loss of binding effect, fraud and breach of natural justice.

The alleged compromise depended on disputed evidence about a meeting between the parties. Ringway had made broad reservations concerning the adjudicator’s jurisdiction, participated in the adjudication and later served an unauthorised rejoinder shortly before the decision was due. The central issues were whether the alleged compromise created a triable defence, whether jurisdiction had been waived, and whether the remaining objections justified refusing enforcement.

1. Summary judgment. The test under CPR Part 24 is whether the defence has no real prospect of success. The court must not conduct a mini-trial where the issue depends on contested oral evidence. The alleged compromise or withdrawal was weak but not fanciful and therefore raised a triable issue.
2. Jurisdictional reservation. A party may reserve its position generally or specifically. The question is whether, in the circumstances, participation amounted to waiver and an ad hoc submission. Ringway’s letters and Response preserved its position on further jurisdictional objections, including the alleged compromise. The adjudicator therefore had no jurisdiction merely because he considered that issue as a defence, if the compromise meant that no dispute existed for adjudication.
3. One dispute. The reference concerned payment for dredging and associated works. The June agreement varied the May agreement as to rates and the method statement. The reference therefore concerned one dispute under one varied contract, not multiple disputes.
4. Temporary binding effect. An error of fact or law does not ordinarily defeat enforcement. The adjudicator’s decision remains binding until the dispute is finally determined by legal proceedings, arbitration or agreement. Agreement on one issue, such as the status of a method statement, did not finally determine the payment dispute.
5. Fraud. Ringway knew of the alleged inconsistencies during the adjudication and could not reformulate them as fraud to resist enforcement. In any event, the evidence did not give it a real prospect of proving that GPS had acted recklessly as to the truth of its claim. Any genuinely new fraud directly affecting the decision might stand differently.
6. Natural justice. The adjudicator was entitled to require a Response and Reply and to refuse a rejoinder served without permission two days before the decision. The rapid adjudication procedure necessarily restricts opportunities for further submissions. The refusal was neither obviously unfair nor material, particularly since the rejoinder merely identified inconsistencies without analysing their effect.
7. GPS was not entitled to summary judgment because the compromise issue required determination. Ringway was required to lodge the sum claimed in court as a condition of defending, pending an early determination of that issue.