An adjudicator can only deal with one dispute under one contract. In Enterprise v McFadden the adjudicator could not therefore deal with a claim to a net balance arising out of mutual dealings on four separate subcontracts (one of which was not even a construction contract) under Rule 4.90 of the Insolvency Rules 1986. Tripartite adjudication is not possible so the adjudication could not cope with a cross claim which would have involved joining assignors. And adjudication would only provide a piecemeal (contract by contract) and temporarily binding solution but Rule 4.90 envisages a final and binding result of the taking of an account in one set of proceedings. All of which meant that the adjudicator in question had no jurisdiction.
In addition, a responding party has to have a reasonable period (however short) to consider a claim for a dispute to crystallise but the claimant first gave notice of its claim at the same time as referring it to adjudication. And quite apart from all that, the judge thought that the large Final Account claim was never suitable for adjudication because its sheer size meant that the adjudicator could not deal with it fairly in the time prescribed by the Housing Grants Act.
Enterprise Managed Services Ltd v McFadden Utilities Ltd [2009] EWHC 3222
