If you do not agree with an adjudicator's decision, you may well consider defending enforcement proceedings by raising as many different issues as possible, in the hope one will be sufficient to prevent enforcement of the decision. In this case, the allegations raised included breach of the rules of natural justice, that there was no dispute, that the dispute had been withdrawn, that new claims were raised during the adjudication and that the claim was so ill defined as to be unable to give rise to any dispute. All failed! The court commented on when a party will be taken to have withdrawn a claim. There must be very clear wording to that effect. An agreement that a party is to substantiate its claim is not an agreement to withdraw it. No matter how vague or ill defined a claim is, if it is rejected by the other party the court is likely to conclude that a dispute exists.

Things to consider  

The courts are required to respect and enforce adjudicator's decisions unless it is plainly unfair or the adjudicator has exceeded his jurisdiction. Only in rare circumstances can the court interfere with a decision. It is advisable to consider and respond to all claims, even if they are not presented in the most appropriate manner. In most cases, the proper course of action to take is to pay the amount awarded by the adjudicator and take legal or arbitration proceedings to determine the issue finally.

VGC v Jackson Civil Engineering Limited [2008] EWHC 2082 (TCC)