Shimizu attempted to resist enforcement of an Adjudicator’s decision on the grounds that, if the decision meant what Cook says it means, then the Adjudicator exceeded his jurisdiction because he decided that the sum of money which Cook sought to be paid was an amount which he had to decide was payable by Shimizu to Cook. The notice of adjudication referred to Cook’s intention to refer to disputes to adjudication but did not claim any particular sum of money was immediately due.

The Judge found that Shimizu was correct in its view of the referring letter as it expressed the view that Cook wishes to have decisions on certain items in dispute on the final account in the hope that, other items might be resolved once the Adjudicator’s decision was given. Looking at the letter and notice it was plain that Cook wished to obtain a decision on what might not correctly be called points of principle, but which were a number of items or elements or ingredients in an overall final account and valuation, as opposed to obtaining a decision as to how much the next interim payment should be.

The Adjudicator’s decision did not mean that sums he had identified were immediately payable because that would involved a consideration of overall liability, and that was not a question that the Adjudicator had been asked to consider. However, if the Adjudicator had intended to direct certain sums should be paid then this was something he was not authorised to do.