Adjudication: Was There More Than One Dispute?

In the case of Witney Town Council v Beam Construction (Cheltenham) Ltd [2011] EWHC 2332 (TCC), Mr Justice Akenhead had to consider whether more than one dispute had been referred to adjudication. If that was the position, then the adjudicator's decision could not be enforced.

The Facts:

In early 2010, Witney Town Council ("the Council") engaged Beam Construction (Cheltenham) Ltd ("Beam") to design and construct the new Madley Park Community Hall in Witney, Oxfordshire for the Contract Sum of £749,726. The contract required the works to be complete by 7 November 2010; however, the works were late. Eventually, the Contract Administer awarded a three-week extension of time such that the new completion date would be 26 November 2010.

On 6 January 2011, the Council took possession of the building so that it could be used in a public election. Beam argued that Practical Completion occurred at this point, but the Council claimed that whilst it did use the building, it was by arrangement and the works were given back to Beam to complete the works after the election. Beam submitted its draft final account on 21 January 2011 and its final account on 2 March 2011. On 11 March 2011, the Council purported to terminate the contract on the basis that Beam was not proceeding regularly and diligently and on 23 March 2011 Beam arrived on site to find that the locks had been changed.

In April 2011 Beam served its Notice of Adjudication and Referral Notice which identified that a dispute had arisen and the questions to be decided by the Adjudicator were:

35.1 What value is due to [Beam] from [the Council]?

35.2 What value is due to [Beam] from [the Council] under and in connection with the account dated 21 January 2011?

35.3 What value is due to [Beam] from [the Council] under and in connection with the account dated to March 2011?

35.4 What is the time or times for payment?

35.5 What sum is due to the Referring Party as interest?

35.6 Is [Beam] entitled to recover the costs of the action?

35.7 Is [Beam] entitled to any such further or other sums from [the Council] as the Adjudicator decides?

The Council made it clear that it considered that more than one dispute had been referred to the Adjudicator and therefore reserved its position. At trial, the Council argued that there were effectively four disputes referred: (1) the draft final account submitted by Beam on 21 January 2011; (2) the final account submitted by Beam on 2 March 2011; (3) a claim for...