Hoyle v BAK Building (Contracts) Ltd

Where a construction contract is oral and contains no adjudication or payment provisions, the terms of the Scheme for Construction Contracts apply. A party may refer the dispute to adjudication without the responding party’s agreement to the process or to the adjudicator’s appointment. On enforcement, the court does not review whether the adjudicator’s decision was right or wrong. It considers whether the adjudicator acted within jurisdiction and whether there was a breach of natural justice. Representation in an adjudication does not require a written authority. Unsubstantiated allegations of bias or disagreement with the adjudicator’s factual conclusions do not justify refusing enforcement.

The claimant carried out carpentry work for the defendant under an undisputed oral agreement. An adjudicator awarded the claimant £3,850.96, together with interest and fees and expenses of £3,805.50. The defendant did not pay, and the claimant sought summary judgment to enforce the adjudicator’s decision.

The defendant sought an adjournment and alleged that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction, had acted outside the matters referred, had been biased, and had improperly relied on the claimant’s representative. The central issues were whether the hearing should be adjourned and whether any of those allegations provided a basis for refusing enforcement.

1. Adjournment. The application was not adjourned. The defendant had received adequate notice of the hearing and directions. Its materials did not identify evidence or submissions capable of affecting the outcome.
2. Adjudication jurisdiction. The oral contract contained no express adjudication or payment terms. The terms of the Scheme for Construction Contracts therefore applied. The claimant was entitled to seek the appointment of an adjudicator without the defendant’s agreement to adjudication or to the appointment of a particular adjudicator. A requirement for such agreement would undermine the adjudication provisions of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996.
3. The absence of a written contract did not prevent the claimant from referring the dispute to adjudication under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, as amended by the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.
4. The claimant was entitled to be represented by his son, and no written authority or other formal arrangement was required. The adjudicator’s receipt of submissions from the representative did not affect his jurisdiction.
5. The defendant’s remaining objections concerned the merits of the adjudicator’s decision. On an enforcement application, the court does not determine whether the decision was correct. It considers whether the adjudicator acted within jurisdiction and whether the decision was obtained in breach of natural justice. The adjudicator had acted within jurisdiction, and the allegations of bias were vague, unsubstantiated and unsupported by evidence.
6. The application was allowed and judgment was entered to enforce the adjudicator’s decision. The claimant’s costs were summarily assessed.