Case No. HT-08-331

16.By a claim form dated 29 October 2008, PTB sought to enforce the Adjudicator's decision dated 1st October 2008. Directions were made on 30 October 2008 and subsequently varied at the request of the parties, leading to the hearing on 4 December 2008. Exchange of evidence and submissions indicated that there were a number of issues which had to be resolved on the application for summary judgment. Those were helpfully defined at the hearing as follows:(1)Is ROK entitled to contend that the decision is not binding in the light of:(a)its objection to the commencement of the adjudication before Mr Brooker;(b)its payment of the adjudicator's fees?(2)Is there a contract in writing within the meaning of s.107 of the 1996 Act?(3)Is ROK entitled to resist enforcement on the basis that the claim included work outside the scope of the contract in writing?(4)Did the Adjudicator lack jurisdiction on the basis that the dispute referred to him had not crystallised? Alternatively, did the manner in which the dispute was referred amount to such a serious breach of the rules of natural justice that the decision should not be enforced?(5)Was there non-compliance with paragraph 7(2) of the Scheme so that there was not a valid adjudication? Alternatively, did any non-compliance amount to such a serious breach of the rules of natural justice that the decision should not be enforced?(6)Did the Adjudicator answer the wrong question so as to deprive the decision of any effect?17.I shall deal with each of those matters in turn.