J G Walker Groundworks Ltd v Priory Homes (East) Ltd

The scope of an adjudication is defined by the Notice of Adjudication. A Referral Notice cannot narrow that scope where the Notice plainly encompasses the dispute. Where the dispute concerns the sum due following a valuation, the adjudicator may consider variations and determine whether the valuation is interim or final. A non-jurisdictional error in calculating the payment date does not invalidate the adjudicator’s decision, but may require correction of the consequential interest calculation.

The claimant sought summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator’s decision awarding £38,832.51, interest, and the adjudicator’s fees and expenses. The defendant challenged enforcement on the basis that the adjudicator had exceeded his jurisdiction by considering variations and by deciding that the relevant valuation was interim rather than final.

The dispute arose from a construction purchase order for roads, sewers and groundworks. The Notice of Adjudication described the dispute as the sum due and the effect of a Payless Notice. The central issues were the scope of that referral and whether the adjudicator could determine the status of the valuation.

1. Summary judgment granted. The claimant was entitled to enforce the adjudicator’s decision. Neither jurisdictional challenge succeeded.
2. The scope of an adjudication is defined by the Notice of Adjudication under Scheme for Construction Contracts, paragraph 1. The Notice expressly described the contract as including verbally agreed variations and referred the dispute as the sum due and the effect of the Payless Notice. The narrower wording used in the Referral Notice could not restrict that scope.
3. The adjudicator therefore had jurisdiction to assess the value of additional work carried out pursuant to the parties’ agreement. The reference to “the Contract” in the adjudicator’s decision did not demonstrate that the variations had been excluded.
4. The adjudicator also had jurisdiction to determine whether the valuation dated 25 April 2013 was an interim or final application. The claimant’s case was that it was an interim valuation, and the adjudicator’s application of paragraph 4, rather than paragraph 5, of Part II of the Scheme showed that he had answered the question referred.
5. Whether the adjudicator reached the correct substantive conclusion on that issue was irrelevant to jurisdiction. The question was whether he had answered the question referred, and he had.
6. The adjudicator made a clerical error in treating the Due Date as 2 May rather than 2 June 2013. The Final Date for Payment was consequently 19 June, not 19 May, and interest was ordered to run from 19 June 2013. The claimant’s solicitors were required to undertake to pay the adjudicator’s fees forthwith on receipt. The question of indemnity costs was reserved for written submissions.