This was an application for summary judgement by the Claimant, LJH Paving Limited (“LJH”). The issue for the Court was whether the decision in four adjudications referring to three different contracts between LJH and the Defendant, Meeres Civil Engineering Limited (“Meeres”), referred to as the “Westfield Final Account Adjudication”, should be enforced. Meeres resisted enforcement on one of the adjudication decisions, claiming that (1) the dispute between the parties had not crystallised and (2) LJH had made claims under multiple contracts in the Westfield Final Account Adjudication.    

Crystallisation

Prior to the Westfield Final Account Adjudication, Meeres rejected a final payment claim made by LJH. Meeres alleged that, amongst other things, insufficient substantiation had been provided by LJH with its final payment claim. Meeres submitted a number of requests for information to LJH with regards to its claim.    

LJH served a notice of adjudication and, soon after, responded to the various requests for information from Meeres. Namely, LJH alleged that it did not need to respond to the requests for information as Meeres had the information which it requested in its possession. Meeres alleged that, as LJH had not responded to the requests, the dispute had not crystallised and the adjudicator, therefore, lacked jurisdiction.   

When considering the law with regards to crystallisation, the Judge referred to a statement made by Jackson J, as he then was, in Amec Civil Engineering Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport [2004] EWHC 2339:

“If the claim as presented by the claimant is so nebulous and ill-defined that the respondent cannot sensibly respond to it, neither silence by the respondent nor even an express non-admission is likely to give rise to a dispute for the purposes of arbitration or adjudication.”

The Judge held that, in the present case, the specific requests for information submitted by Meeres clearly demonstrated that the claim was not nebulous or ill-defined. The specific requests, in fact, demonstrated that the claim was well understood by Meeres. Meeres’ claim that the dispute had not crystallised was rejected.

The Judge noted that, had he not rejected the crystallisation argument, he would have rejected this element of the defence on the basis that it had not been properly raised by Meeres in the adjudication as a jurisdictional defence. As a consequence, Meeres had lost its right to rely on the argument in the enforcement proceedings.

Multiple Contracts

The Judge considered the multiple contracts argument raised by Meeres. Meeres alleged that, because it is arguable that LJH had claimed for the value of works carried out under two contracts in the Westfield Final Account Adjudication, it had an arguable defence. LJH submitted that the multiple contracts point was advanced by Meeres as a substantive defence in the adjudication, rather than a jurisdictional one and, as such, the point could not be taken to prevent enforcement. 

The Judge agreed with this submission. Furthermore, the Judge noted that, even if the multiple contracts point was open to argument before the Court, it would be rejected. The Judge held that the contract which the works in question fell under was an issue for the adjudicator to decide. If the adjudicator was incorrect, it was not an issue that went to his jurisdiction. This part of the defence was also rejected by the Judge and the four adjudicator’s decision were enforced.   

This case demonstrates that jurisdictional issues and substantive issues can be conflated and not easy to separate.  It also provides useful commentary on the crystallisation of disputes and demonstrates that if a claim is not substantiated adequately it does not automatically prevent a claim from crystallising.