Case No. HT-08-331

, both by Jackson J, as he then was, at first instance, at [2004] EWHC 2339, and on appeal at [2005] BLR 227 at 234. The circumstances from which a dispute may emerge are Protean. A process of negotiation and discussion may be consistent with the existence of a dispute and the court is likely to be willing readily to infer that a dispute exists so that the parties are not impeded from starting timely adjudication proceedings.48.In this case, when PTB served its notice of adjudication on 11 August 2008, ROK wrote to say that a dispute did not exist but, on the other hand, said that they referred to previous submissions and the content of recent meetings when ROK had confirmed their view that PTB's works were grossly over-valued. PTB did not proceed with that notice of adjudication but did proceed with its further notice of adjudication dated 20 August 2008, which attached an amended document with the title, “Final account”. That differed from the document served on 11 August 2008. In particular, whilst the figures under Phase 1 and Phase 1 variations remained the same, the entries under Phase 2 works and Phase 2 variations/CVIs and Dayworks changed by a few thousand pounds. In addition, retention was allowed at 5% in the earlier document and 2.5% in the document of 20 August 2008. The reason for the change in figures between the document of 11 August 2008 and that of 20 August 2008 is not entirely clear on the documents. The main change, as confirmed by Mr Ghataura, is that in general terms more detail was provided, particularly in relation to the Phase 2 variations/CVIs which were estimated in the earlier document. 49.I consider that the question of whether there was a crystallised dispute on 20 August 2008 has to be seen in the context of the process which led up to the notice of adjudication in August 2008. The history of matters is set out by Mr Ghataura, who refers to the application of 18 June 2008. He says that at about that time there were discussions between PTB and ROK about how they were to move forward in valuing PTB's works. He says that at a meeting between the parties on 12 June 2008 it had been agreed that the parties should first try to agree the value of the Decent Homes work at each property and then have discussions in relation to the value of variations. The exchange of emails between 12 and 27 June 2008 shows the process by which the valuation of those works was discussed. It is evident that the matters had proceeded on the basis of those discussions up until early August 2008. By that date, as ROK stated in their letter of 13 August 2008, they considered that PTB's works were over-valued. 50.In light of this background, I consider that PTB's notice of adjudication of 11 August 2008 and ROK's letter in response crystallised a dispute in respect of the valuation of the works in relation to Phase 1, Phase 2 and Dayworks to the extent that one had not previously crystallised. The dispute was as to the proper valuation of sums payable to PTB in respect of the works they had carried out. The fact that the second notice of adjudication included some further details of the sums claimed by PTB did not, I consider, mean that there was a new dispute which had not crystallised. In my judgment, this was a continuation of the dispute about the valuation of PTB's works which had formed the basis of discussion between the parties from June 2008. ROK refers, in particular, to there being no dispute as to the final account. There is no process under the meeting notes for there to be any different way of dealing with a final account compared to the usual procedure for application by PTB and payment by ROK. The final account in this case is, therefore, in my judgment, merely an application for payment of a type such as the others and it does not represent a different dispute to the dispute concerned with the proper valuation of PTB's work in the earlier applications. Therefore, on the basis of the exchanges between the parties from June 2008 up to 20 August 2008, I consider that there was a sufficiently crystallised dispute as to the proper valuation of PTB's work for the matter to proceed to adjudication. By the time of the exchange following the first notice of adjudication, at the latest, that dispute had crystallised. 51.Nor do I consider that the additional material provided by PTB with the first or second notices of adjudication rendered the process so unfair that the decision should not be enforced. Mr Ghataura, at paragraphs 25 to 31 of his first witness statement, deals with the further information provided on PTB's variation claims. He says that it was impossible to provide a line by line response to the variations before the response had to be served in the adjudication. He says that the best that ROK was able to do was to suggest that a percentage should be deducted. The adjudicator adopted that approach and used the method of a percentage reduction derived from his findings of the Phase 1 works applied for by PTB on its property build up sheets. Whilst I accept that ROK had to respond to new material, I consider that the process, including the response by ROK and the meeting which the adjudicator held on 24 September 2008, gave ROK a fair opportunity to present its case in the context of the adjudication. Further, the adjudicator adopted that approach put forward by ROK. There was, in my judgment, nothing obviously unfair in this process which could render the adjudicator's decision unenforceable - see