Grovedeck carried out demolition work for Capital pursuant to oral contracts. Disputes arose which Grovedeck referred to adjudication. Capital argued that the Adjudicator acted without jurisdiction since there was no contract in writing and that the Act did not apply.

Grovedeck relied on the exchange of written submissions in the adjudication itself and that there had been no denial that there were oral agreements in the two projects and this was enough to give the adjudicator jurisdiction.

The two main issues to be decided were:

1. Did the Act apply to oral contracts; and
2. Could more than one dispute can be referred to adjudication and, in particular, disputes under more than one contract.

On the first issue, the Judge held that disputes as to terms, express and implied, of oral contracts were not readily susceptible to resolution by adjudication. Therefore Parliament had no intention for submissions made by a party to an unauthorised adjudication to give the supposed Adjudicator a jurisdiction which he did not have. He also noted that an Adjudicator can go no further than enquire into his own jurisdiction, but can not decide it.

Having already decided the contract did not comply with s107(5), the Judge agreed with Judge Thornton in Fastrack Construction v Morrison Construction that only one dispute could be referred at any one time under the Scheme. However, there was no such restriction in relation to the Act, unless the parties agreed otherwise. His Honour stated: “I see no reason why a construction contract in writing which sufficiently complied with section 108 of the Act as to avoid the application of the Scheme should not provide for the referral of more than one dispute or more than one contract without the consent of the other party”.