The petitioners were main contractors for building works in Glasgow. They concluded a sub-contract with the second respondent. A dispute arose in relation to the sub-contract work which the second respondent sought to refer to adjudication. An issue arose as to whether the provisions in the sub-contract satisfied sections 108(1) to (4) of the HGCRA 1996 or whether the adjudication provisions of the Scheme for Construction Contracts applied.

A first adjudicator was appointed in accordance with the statutory scheme. He concluded that he did not have jurisdiction.

The dispute was then referred to a second adjudicator. He concluded that he had been validly appointed. Subsequently, he issued a decision by which the petitioners were ordered to pay about £8,000. The petitioners raised a petition for judicial review in order to prevent enforcement of the adjudicator’s decision. They denied the adjudicator’s power to determine his jurisdiction.

Lady Paton refused the petition. In her view, the adjudicator was empowered to determine the preliminary issue of his appointment and jurisdiction. She held that by enacting the adjudication provisions in the 1996 Act, Parliament intended that adjudicators should determine the meaning of the terms of the construction contract under which the dispute arises, including any terms directed to the dispute resolution procedures. In addition, Lady Paton confirmed the respondent’s view that the sub-contract did not contain provisions which satisfied s108(1) to (4) of the Act, so the respondents could revert to the statutory Scheme as the applicable adjudication procedure.