RCS Contractors Ltd v Conway

An adjudicator under Housing Grants Construction Regeneration Act 1996 may determine a single dispute arising from one construction contract, even where the work concerns several sites and is recorded in separate documents. The existence of separate bills, valuations, payment applications or site arrangements does not itself establish separate contracts. The question is whether, on the evidence, the parties agreed one contract or several. Where one contract covers the works, a final-account claim relating to all sites may constitute a single dispute within the adjudicator’s jurisdiction.

RCS Contractors Limited sought to enforce an adjudicator’s decision requiring Anthony Conway to pay £59,551.65, including interest. RCS had carried out groundworks at three sites. Conway contended that the works were governed by three separate oral contracts and that the adjudicator therefore lacked jurisdiction because the reference comprised three disputes.

Following an order granting leave to defend on that sole jurisdictional issue, the High Court considered whether the parties had made one contract covering all three sites or separate contracts for each site.

1. Jurisdictional framework. Section 108(1) of the Housing Grants Construction Regeneration Act 1996 permits a party to a construction contract to refer a dispute arising from that contract to adjudication. The court adopted the orthodox view that an adjudicator may decide one dispute at a time. The broad meaning of dispute described in Fastrack Contractors Limited v Morrison Construction Limited [2000] BLR 168 means that one dispute may contain several claims, issues or contentions.
2. One contract or three. The issue was whether the parties agreed one contract for the three sites or three separate contracts. Separate documentation, different site arrangements and separate valuation material did not determine that question.
3. Evidence. On the balance of probabilities, the evidence of Mr O’Rourke was accepted. The parties had agreed in one conversation that RCS would undertake all three projects as a single package. The single final-account claim and the single payment and payless notices were consistent with that conclusion. Conway’s case rested substantially on the existence of three sites and separate paperwork, which did not establish three contracts.
4. Result. There was one contract and therefore one dispute concerning the final account. The adjudicator had jurisdiction, and RCS was entitled to the sum claimed with interest. It was unnecessary to decide whether Conway had agreed to be bound by the adjudicator’s jurisdictional findings. The court noted, obiter, the uncertainty and cost created by the repeal of section 107 of the 1996 Act in relation to oral construction contracts.