Willmott Dixon Housing Ltd v Newlon Housing Trust

For adjudication under a construction contract, the fundamental requirement is referral of the dispute to the adjudicator within seven days of the notice. A failure concerning the detailed contents of the referral, or copying the statement of case to the responding party, does not automatically deprive the adjudicator of jurisdiction. The latter failure may instead raise a natural justice issue, depending on its effect.

Separate adjudications may be commenced at the same time and referred to the same adjudicator. The restriction on referring more than one dispute concerns multiple disputes referred within a single adjudication, absent consent. It does not prevent separate references of separate disputes.

Willmott Dixon sought summary judgment under CPR 24 to enforce two adjudication decisions requiring Newlon to pay sums concerning basement works and liquidated damages.

Newlon argued that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction because the referral documents had not been properly served under the CIC Rules, and because two separate disputes had been referred to the same adjudicator at the same time. The court considered whether those arguments gave Newlon real prospects of successfully defending enforcement.

1. Summary judgment. Willmott Dixon was entitled to summary judgment enforcing both adjudication decisions.
2. Referral within seven days. Section 108(2)(b) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 and rule 14 of the CIC Rules require the dispute to be referred within seven days of the notice. The fundamental requirement is that the referring party sends the adjudicator a statement of its case within that period. Failure to do so prevents the adjudication from proceeding and deprives the adjudicator of jurisdiction.
3. Detailed referral requirements. Rule 14 does not prescribe a particular form of statement of case. A technical failure to include a particular document does not necessarily invalidate the adjudication. The covering letter and accompanying bundle sufficiently set out the claimant’s case, as demonstrated by Newlon’s detailed responses. The adjudicator’s finding that he had received the referral on time was also a factual finding within his jurisdiction and was not open to challenge on the enforcement application.
4. Copying the statement of case. The requirement to copy the statement of case to the other party does not found the adjudicator’s jurisdiction. Failure to provide it may engage natural justice if the responding party is unaware of the case it must meet. No such unfairness arose because Newlon later received the document and responded to it.
5. Separate adjudications. The Act and CIC Rules did not prevent two notices and two referrals, each concerning a single dispute, from being made at the same time and determined by the same adjudicator. Authorities concerning multiple disputes referred in one adjudication, including Bothma and Witney Town Council, did not govern separate adjudications. The same adjudicator’s appointment did not affect jurisdiction.
6. Obiter observation. If necessary, the court would have treated references to “a dispute” or “the dispute” in rule 8 as generic rather than limiting the number of separate adjudications, particularly in light of rule 36.
7. The court did not need to determine recovery of adjudicator’s fees if jurisdiction had failed. It noted the distinction identified in PC Harrington Contractors Ltd v Systech International Ltd between fees following a natural justice breach and fees following an unsuccessful jurisdictional challenge.