Laker Vent Engineering Ltd ("Laker") v Jacobs E&C Ltd ("Jacobs")

An adjudication decision is enforceable despite an alleged error of fact or law, provided its terms are sufficiently certain. A party may reserve its jurisdictional objections while seeking a correction under the slip rule, or making payment, if the reservation is sufficiently clear.

For the statutory exclusions concerning assembly or installation of plant, the relevant “site” is identified by an overall impression of the location and the purpose which the works serve. Contractual boundaries and separate ownership are relevant but not decisive. Where a contract is governed by English law, the Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) may apply as an implied term, even though the works are performed in Scotland.

The proceedings concerned a sub-contract for the supply, fabrication and installation of pipework at a biomass combined heat and power plant in Scotland. Laker sought summary judgment to enforce three adjudication decisions concerning extensions of time, additional scope and taking-over. Jacobs challenged enforcement on jurisdictional grounds, alleged inconsistency between the decisions, and argued that the Scottish adjudication scheme applied.

Jacobs also brought a Part 8 claim concerning the relationship between contractual completion and taking-over. Laker applied for a stay under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The central issues were whether the sub-contract was a construction contract, whether the adjudication decisions were enforceable, which statutory scheme applied, and whether the Part 8 claim should proceed in arbitration or court.

1. Summary judgment. Laker was entitled to summary judgment enforcing the three adjudication decisions. The sub-contract concerned construction operations and was not excluded by section 105(2)(c) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996.
2. Meaning of site. The relevant site was the whole paper-mill complex, including the land leased to the power-plant operator. The plant was located there to provide steam and electricity for the paper mill. Its ability to export electricity to the national grid did not alter the primary purpose of the site. The statutory exclusion for assembly and installation of plant on a site whose primary activity was power generation therefore did not apply.
3. Reservation and election. A general reservation of jurisdictional objections can preserve a party’s right to challenge jurisdiction while it participates in adjudication. The reservation in Jacobs’ solicitors’ email was sufficient to permit an application under the slip rule without election to affirm the adjudicator’s jurisdiction. The alleged inconsistency between the awards was not itself a jurisdictional objection and, in any event, was not established.
4. Consistency and enforcement. The extension of time decision granted an extension to 11 October 2013. The taking-over decision required a certificate stating 30 August 2013. Those decisions addressed different contractual questions and were sufficiently certain to enforce. The court would not review the underlying factual or legal correctness of an adjudicator’s decision on enforcement. An error would not ordinarily make the decision a nullity or constitute a breach of natural justice.
5. Applicable scheme and arbitration. Because the sub-contract was governed by English law, the England and Wales Scheme applied as an implied term under section 114(4) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. The Part 8 stay application was adjourned with liberty to apply. If the parties failed to agree a sole arbitrator within 28 days of the request, the contractual fallback was court proceedings, the arbitration agreement would become inoperative or incapable of performance, and a stay would not be appropriate.

Not stated in the judgment.