Edwards-Stuart J in the Technology and Construction Court considered applications for summary judgment in two separate adjudication enforcement actions, brought by a contractor against an employer. The adjudicator had decided the dispute in favour of the contractor, but the employer failed to comply with the resulting order. The contractor applied to the court for enforcement, and the employer resisted this on the basis that the adjudicator had answered the question wrongly: Urang Commercial Ltd v Century Investments Ltd and Eclipse Hotels (Luton) Ltd [2011] EWHC 1561 (TCC).Although the court accepted that the adjudicator had made a mistake, it also accepted that it was settled law that even if an adjudicator is incorrect in his decision, the award will still be enforced – Bouygues (UK) Ltd v Dahl-Jensen [2000] EWCA Civ 507. The adjudicator had in fact answered the correct question; the fact that he answered it wrongly afforded the employer no defence.
The employer had tried to present his argument as going to jurisdiction but the court firmly rejected this. Once again it endorsed the principle that an adjudicator's decision, however wrong in fact or in law, must be enforced unless to do so would bring it within one of the well recognised exceptions to the principle in Bouygues (namely where the adjudicator acts outside his jurisdiction, where the adjudicator acts in breach of the rules of natural justice, or where one of the parties is insolvent).