This was a summary judgement application by which the claimant, Mecright Ltd, claimed payment for sub-contract works carried out for TA Morris at a construction site in Staffordshire. The Scheme for construction contracts applied to the subcontract. TA Morris, after having formed the view that Mecright had failed to proceed with the execution of the subcontract works in a reasonable and workmanlike manner, terminated the contract. A dispute arose out of these facts. TA Morris referred the dispute to adjudication seeking, firstly, a declaration that “the contract was cancelled in accordance with the subcontract”, secondly, recovery of damages from Mecright “arising out of the cancelled subcontract”.

The adjudicator decided against TA Morris, on the grounds that they had failed to apply the conditions on cancellation properly and correctly. Accordingly, TA Morris was found not to be entitled to damages. The point at issue derived from the further decision of the adjudicator to award Mecright a sum of about £30,000. TA Morris asserted the adjudicator had no jurisdiction to grant the sum.

HHJ Seymour identified that the sources of jurisdiction of an adjudicator were twofold:

• Primarily, the adjudicator can decide any matters that is the subject of the notice of adjudication.
• Pursuant to paragraph 20 Part 1 of the Scheme, the adjudicator can decide disputes which are aspects of or the resolution of which is necessary to resolve the dispute which is subject to the notice of adjudication.

In accordance with these principles, HHJ Seymour found that on a proper construction of the notice, the adjudicator only had jurisdiction to decide whether the termination was correct and, if so, what sum TA Morris was entitled to as damages resulting from the wrongful determination. In contrast, the award of a sum due to Mecright in respect of the execution of the subcontract works was not covered by his jurisdiction. Therefore, the application for summary judgement failed.