Stiell claimed sums in court proceedings against Reima. An agreed amount was arrested by being deposited in court under Scottish court procedure. Prior to the court proceedings in which the arrestment was made, Still referred a dispute to adjudication. The dispute was the same as that in the court proceedings. The Adjudicator ordered that only a part of its total claim should be paid to Steill. Reima paid this sum. The amount arrested in court was reduced by agreement but the Reima subsequently applied for the arrestment to be recalled in its totality. The Court refused the application, notwithstanding that Steill’s claim in the adjudication proceedings had been for the total value of its works and that Stiell had made the same claim in the court proceedings in which the monies were arrested. The debt which existed at the commencement of the court proceedings was "pure" and not "contingent" (under Scottish law). The fact that an issue in court proceedings might be required to be determined by arbitration or adjudication proceedings and that, as in the instant case, the determination by an Adjudicator was only binding until final determination by the court or by agreement did not mean that there was any change in the issue to be determined or that claims which were "pure" had become "contingent."