Case No. HT-08-331

[2000] BLR 522. 57.Mr Stansfield submits that on the basis of the notice of adjudication the question which was referred to the adjudicator was whether there was non-payment of amounts due to PTB from ROK and, if so, what was the size of those non-payments? That, he submits, is what the adjudicator decided. I consider that Mr Stansfield is correct. The dispute referred to the adjudicator concerned sums due to PTB from ROK. Those sums were set out in a document referred to as a “final account” but, under the notes of the meeting, there is no final account; there are merely applications for payment. And the applications for payment in this case were to be treated no differently from other applications. In my judgment, the adjudicator was entitled to come to the decision he did on the dispute before him and, in doing so, he answered the question posed to him.