Here the court granted summary judgment of two adjudicator's decisions (one dealing with substantive issues, and one with costs), dismissing all the challenges brought by the defendant. Although it found that a general reservation of rights by the defendant was sufficient to enable it to maintain jurisdictional challenges in the enforcement proceedings, the court noted that a period of 11 months had elapsed since the adjudication proceedings, and that the defendant had issued a number of challenges on different bases.

Fraser J was critical of the "widespread and varied" attempts by the defendant to raise jurisdictional objections, characterising them as "scrabbling around" to find an excuse not to comply, and commenting that the way the defendant had conducted itself was not how adjudication was intended to operate.   He went on to find that there was "nothing" in the points raised by the defendant, and that the decisions should be enforced.  The case is a reminder that, whilst a general reservation of rights at the outset of an adjudication is a useful protective measure, unless there are substantive grounds for jurisdictional challenge it will not prevent enforcement.

To read more, please click here.