The claimant, Dean & Dyball, had retained the defendant consulting engineers to design an impounding gate across the entrance of a marina. The defendant designed a gate that was manufactured and installed in the entrance to the marina, but that never worked properly. The claimant brought a claim for breach of contract and negligence in adjudication, and the adjudicator awarded it additional costs it had had incurred as a result of the defective design of the gate. The defendant declined to pay the adjudicator's award, and so the claimant brought proceedings in the Technology & Construction Court to enforce it.
*Full case details
Dean & Dyball Construction Limited vs Kenneth Grubb Associates Limited, 28 October 2003, High Court, Queen's Bench Division, Technology & Construction Court, Judgment of His Honour Judge Richard Seymour QC
The defendant sought to resist enforcement of the decision on five grounds:

  • The claim referred to adjudication was not the same claim as the one the parties had been corresponding about prior to the notice of adjudication.

  • The contract between the parties was not capable of being adjudicated because it was not "in writing" as defined by s107 of the HGCRA 1996.

  • The dispute was not validly referred to adjudication under the contractual provisions.

  • The adjudicator made an error of law by answering the wrong question.

  • The procedure lacked fairness.