Articles

In this podcast, David Sawtell explores ‘fresh’ delay claims and whether a time-consuming fresh dispute would be raised in response.

A pair of recent decisions in the High Court this year have again turned on the question of whether only one dispute was referred to adjudication. Once again, Akenhead J’s decision in Witney Town Council v Beam Construction (Cheltenham) Limited [2011] EWHC 2332 (TCC); 139 ConLR 1 (‘Witney Town’) has been re-visited. In both decisions, the question of whether there was a single dispute referred, or more than one dispute, was answered broadly. In many ways, this is to be welcomed: as confirmed by Coulson J (as he then was) in Deluxe Art & Theme Limited v Beck Interiors Limited [2016] EWHC 238 (TCC); 164 ConLR 218, it is normally only possible to refer a single dispute to adjudication: if the adjudicator deals with more than one dispute, it will not be enforced unless it can be saved by way of severance. Prater Ltd v John Sisk & Son (Holdings) Ltd [2021] EWHC 1113 (TCC) and Quandro Services Ltd v Creagh Concrete Products Ltd [2021] EWHC 2637 (TCC) are classic examples of the approach that, if there is a dispute as to how much money is owed from one party to the other, the court will be slow to allow technical arguments to prevent a successful enforcement. The question is raised, however, as to when the Court of Appeal will impose limits on this expansive interpretation.

Rather than presenting a kaleidoscope of case law, this article will critically examine the three cases that the Supreme Court gave permission to appeal to that have shaped the adjudication landscape in the last few years.