Woods successfully referred a dispute regarding its entitlement to fees to adjudication. The contract was based upon an exchange of letters and contained no provisions for adjudication therefore the Scheme applied. At enforcement, Chiltern argued that the Adjudicator’s decision was a nullity as the Adjudicator had failed to conduct the adjudication impartially and in compliance with the rules of natural justice. In particular:

1. The Adjudicator had prevented Chiltern from fairly presenting its case at the meetings;
2. The Adjudicator had taken evidence from Woods and from third parties which he failed, subsequently, to afford Chiltern the opportunity to comment upon; and
3. The Adjudicator had provided a detailed witness statement to Woods for use in the enforcement proceedings which contained partisan views adverse to Chiltern.

The Judge dismissed the application. He commented that, although Chiltern had not served a withholding notice, the sums claimed by Woods had not been the subject of any third party assessment or certificate, so that any abatement properly relied upon by Chiltern did not require a s111 notice. The Judge held:

1. In order to make a valid and enforceable decision, an Adjudicator must act in conformity with the rules of the Scheme which imposed an obligation on the Adjudicator to act impartially;
2. The Adjudicator had to ensure that the procedure which he adopted allowed Chiltern a fair opportunity to make its case;
3. The Adjudicator was in breach of the Scheme for failing to make available to both parties information that he obtained from Woods and the third party;
4. Whilst there was no rule which prevented an Adjudicator’s witness statement being submitted in a related court action, an Adjudicator should ensure that his evidence is confined to a neutral factual account; in this case, the Adjudicator’s statement exceeded the requirement of neutrality;
5. The statutory requirement to act impartially required the Adjudicator to act in a way that did not lead to a perception (judged objectively) of partiality by one party. In this case, the Adjudicator’s conduct could easily be perceived as partial.