The petitioner entered into a contract with the respondents for concrete works. In February 2001 the petitioners commenced a first adjudication procedure seeking payment for their works. In March 2001 the adjudicator awarded the petitioners payment of a sum of £19,484.17. In April the respondents initiated a further adjudication. The issue was whether the subject matter of the dispute in the second adjudication was substantially the same as in the first procedure. On request of the petitioners, Lord Bonomy granted a decree of interdict and suspension ad interim during an earlier hearing at which the respondents had not been represented.

The Court of Session recalled the interim interdict and suspension on procedural grounds. Lord Bonomy held that since 1985 it had been mandatory to present applications of this kind to the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session by petition for judicial review rather than by ordinary petition (Rule 58.3.-(1) of the Rules of the Court of Session applied in two respects). Given that the petitioner sought to challenge the vires of the second adjudicator, and that challenge arose out of the failure of the second adjudicator to resign pursuant to paragraph 9.2 of the Scheme of construction contracts, such proceedings should have been by judicial review.