BARHALE LTD AGAINST SP TRANSMISSION PLC [2021] ScotCS CSOH

BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Scottish Court of Session Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> BARHALE LTD AGAINST SP TRANSMISSION PLC [2021] ScotCS CSOH_2 (12 January 2021) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2021/2021_CSOH_2.html Cite as: 2021 GWD 4-50, [2021] ScotCS CSOH_2, [2021] CSOH 2, 2021 SLT 852, 2021 SLT 52

[1] This is an action for enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision. The defence is that the

decision should be set aside ope exceptionis on the ground that the adjudicator failed to

exhaust his jurisdiction or, alternatively, failed to give adequate reasons for his decision.

[2] In about February 2018, the pursuer and defender entered into a contract whereby

the pursuer agreed to carry out works described as “the carrying out and construction of

Currie Switchgear Modernisation & Group Reinforcement - Civil Works” at an electricity

sub-station at Currie, Edinburgh. The terms of the contract included (i) the conditions in the

NEC3 Engineering and Construction Contract, Main Option B, Third edition, April 2013,

and (ii) the Contract Data part one in Appendix 1 to the contract. The Contract Data part

one provided inter alia that the method of measurement to be used was the Civil Engineering

[3] The works undertaken by the pursuer included the construction of a number of

foundations in an area of existing made ground. In order to construct the foundations, the

pursuer required to carry out excavations and remove the made ground down to competent

strata at a minimum excavation level indicated on drawings in the Works Information. The

pursuer then required to bring levels back up in imported fill, constructing the foundations

[4] The pursuer executed the works by carrying out a bulk excavation of an area greater

than the area of the foundations to be constructed, down to a level where adequate bearing

capacity was found. In most places the surface achieved acceptable bearing at the formation

level for the foundations. In a limited number of areas, where the bearing was inadequate,

the pursuer continued further excavations in stages, testing until good bearing was achieved

and then up-filling to the underside of foundations. It then proceeded with backfilling and

[5] A dispute arose between the parties as to the amount due to the pursuer for the

excavation and filling work that it had carried out. The pursuer sought payment for the

remeasured quantities based upon the actual bulk excavation, disposal and filling carried

out, applying the relevant rates from the bill of quantities. The defender refused to make

payment on this basis, contending that the pursuer was entitled to be paid only o n the basis

of the net volume of excavation for the foundations constructed, including excavation and

fill directly beneath or above those foundations, but excluding the remaining area excavated

[6] In refusing to make payment for the actual bulk excavation, the defender founded

upon the following measurement rules in Class E (Earthworks) in section 8 of CESMM3:

“M1: In accordance with paragraph 5.18 the quantities of earthworks shall be

computed net using dimensions from the Drawings with no allowance for bulking,

M6: The volume measured for the excavation of a structure or foundation shall be

the volume which is to be either occupied by or vertically above any part of the

M16: Filling of excavations around completed structures shall be measured only to

the extent that the volume filled is also measured as excavation in accordance with

[7] On 29 May 2020, the pursuer served a notice of intention to refer the dispute to

adjudication and applied to the Institution of Civil Engineers for nomination of an

adjudicator. On 8 June 2020 the pursuer referred the dispute to the nominated adjudicator.

[8] In its referral to the adjudicator, the pursuer submitted that it was apparent that the

drafter of the bill of quantities had had in mind that (in line with the Works Information) the

made ground would be removed and replaced in bulk, thus forming the “platform” for

construction of the foundations. Reference was made to clause 11.2 (28) of NEC3, Option B,

which stated: “The Price for Work Done to Date is the total of the quantity of the work

which the Contractor has completed for each item in the Bill of Quantities multiplied by the

rate…”. The pursuer asserted that in any payment assessment prepared by the project

manager, he was required to include the measured quantity of work actually completed by

the contractor, ie the whole volume of the bulk excavation and fill, and to apply the

appropriate rates from th e bill of quantities to that volume. Appended to the pursuer’s

referral was its measure submission to the defender which had inter alia explained why the

pursuer considered that measurement rules M6 and M16 were not relevant to the

[9] The defender submitted its response to the pursuer’s referral. The response included

five “significant points”, three of which may be noted here. Point 1 reiterated the argument

based on rule M6 of CESMM3. Point 3 took issue with the pursuer’s interpretation of the bill

of quantities; the defender argued that the bill did not provide for a bulk excavation, and

that accordingly bulk excavation had been nothing more than the pursuer’s chosen

methodology. Point 5 reiterated the argument based on rule M16 of CESMM3.

[10] The pursuer submitted a reply to the defender’s response. The reply addressed each

of the defender’s five points in turn. In relation to point 1, the pursuer maintained its

position that rule M6 was irrelevant to the claim because the works consisted of construction

[11] The defender submitted a rejoinder to the pursuer’s reply. The rejoinder began by

noting that on the day after the pursuer had submitted its reply, the adjudicator had sent an

email advising that he considered that his decision was basically upon the question: “Does

the Works Information instruct Barhale to undertake bulk earthworks, or not?”. The

defender stated that it considered that a second question had to be answered, so that

together, the questions were: (i) what works was the pursuer required by the Works

Information to undertake, and (ii) what does the contract provide for the pursuer to be paid

for its works? The second of those questions is the CESMM3 argument. Points made by the

pursuer in its reply in relation to that argument were responded to.

[12] The pursuer submitted a surrejoinder to the defender’s rejoinder. The arguments in

the surrejoinder focused primarily on whether the Works Information required the pursuer

to undertake bulk earthworks, and on the status of the bill of quantities.

[13] No further formal arguments were submitted by either party. However, on 15 July

2020, the adjudicator sent an email to the parties’ representatives stating:

“The principle [sic] decision that I’m to make is ‘Does the Works Information require

the bulk excavation and filling work that was undertaken by Barhale, or not?’ Both

parties have advanced their best case in respect of their contentions, but neither party

has advanced a contention that should I decide for the opposing party in principle

then the quantities stated in Barhale’s Application for Payment dated 17th April

2020, or the Project Manager’s Assessment of 1st May 2020, are incorrect.

Therefore, unless a party challenges the quantities contended for by the opposing

The defender’s agents replied the following day (16 July 2020), stating inter alia:

“Please note that SPT considers the primary dispute in this matter concerns the

applicable contractual method of measurement. Whilst it is relevant to determine

whether or not bulk excavation was required, the true question is what is BH entitled

to be paid for those works, whether required or not, and this is to be determined by

“It is clear that SP has failed to understand the question I asked in my email dated

15 July 2020, timed at 15:59, and decided to re-run its contentions. So I will spell it

If in principle I decide that the Works Information has instructed Barhale to

undertake the bulk excavation, disposal and filling work, does SP disagree the

[14] The adjudicator issued his decision on 27 July 2020. At paragraphs 21 and 22 of his

decision, the adjudicator summarised the dispute between the parties as follows:

“21. The dispute between the parties was that Barhale contended that the Works

Information instructed it to undertake the bulk excavation, disposal and filling work,

whereas SP contended that whilst Barhale undertook constructing its contracted

work this way, it was Barhale’s methodology of undertaking the work, not that it

was instructed to be undertaken by the Works Information this way and, therefore,

all Barhale was entitled to be paid was for the net excavation, disposal and backfill

required to construct each of the foundation bases in accordance with the Civil

Engineering Standard Method of Measurement 3rd edition (‘CESMM3’), which was

22. The primary decision that I have to decide is whether the Works Information

instructed the bulk excavation, disposal and filling work undertaken by Barhale, or

[15] The adjudicator’s decision includes a section headed “The Issues”, containing a

narrative of the parties’ contentions. This section has three sub-headings, namely “Does the

Works Information instruct Barhale to undertake the bulk dig, disposal and filling work, or

not?” (paragraphs 26-40); “The Parties’ Quantities” (paragraphs 41-48); and “SP’s

Counterclaim” (paragraphs 49-51). At paragraphs 36-40, the adjudicator summarised the

“36. SP’s contention was that the work undertaken by Barhale was subject to

re-measurement in accordance with CESMM3 and that in accordance with the terms

and conditions of the Contract the Project Manager had duly assessed the value of

Barhale’s work in accordance with this and supported this with voluminous

technical quantity surveying detail, including a copy of CESMM3, in support of its

37. SP also contended that Barhale’s reliance upon the quantities stated in the Bills

of Quantities could not be relied upon because the quantities are not Works

Information, notwithstanding that the descriptions were due to the amended

Z clause. SP went to considerable length in advancing this contention,

notwithstanding that at no time did Barhale contend that the quantities in the Bill

38. The whole of SP’s contentions were that the only excavation, disposal and filling

that it was contracted to pay Barhale for, were the net quantities under and around

each of the 440 No. isolated foundations, nothing more and whilst Barhale undertook

the bulk excavation, disposal and filling operation, this was solely its methodology

adopted of its own volition. It was not required by the Works Information

39. SP agreed that the documents relied upon [by] Barhale… were Works

Information but contended that Barhale’s claims that Drawing 2208 shows

construction by bulk excavating was misconceived as there is no such reference

40. Other than this [sic] denial at paragraph 3.7 of SP’s Response to the Referral, SP

did not provide any other interpretations to the above mentioned Works

Information, other than to state that it did not instruct Barhale to undertake the bulk

excavation, disposal and filling work for which Barhale is seeking payment. SP

agreed that Barhale undertook this work, but its contention was that Barhale had

chosen to do this as its methodology of undertaking the construction of the

foundations, not that the Works Information obligated Barhale to undertake this

[16] The decision itself, which begins at paragraph 53, follows the same structure. The

adjudicator’s conclusion in relation to the first issue is set out at paragraph s 71 and 72:

“71. Because of all of the above, especially the impracticability of Barhale being able

to construct the work as measured by the Project Manager in compliance with the

Specification, especially that of the compaction and proof rolling of the upfill, I

decide that the Works Information does instruct Barhale to undertake the bulk

excavation, disposal and filling operation to construct the platform and also that this

72. Therefore, I also decide that the works should be measured and valued in

accordance with Barhale’s Method of Working as stated at paragraphs 1.9, 1.11, 1.12

The adjudicator then turned to the issue of the quantities that the pursuer was to have

valued and paid and, in essence, accepted the pursuer’s figures. He rejected the defender’s

counterclaim. No argument is advanced in the present proceedings in relation to either of

[17] In the light of his decision on the three issues identified above, th e adjudicator found

the pursuer entitled to an additional payment of £196,606.33 for the bulk excavation,

disposal and filling work to construct the platform. He made further orders in relation to

[18] On behalf of the defender it was accepted that in the vast majority of cases, an

adjudicator’s decision would be enforced by the court. Nevertheless it was submitted that

the present case fell within one of the limited but well recognised categories in which

enforcement should be refused. The adjudicator had failed to exhaust his jurisdiction or, if

not, had failed to give proper and adequate reasons for his decision.

[19] The adjudicator’s decision failed to consider the defen der’s argument as to the

proper contractual basis for assessment and payment for the excavation and associated

disposal and filling works, and in particular failed to consider its argument as to the

operation and effect of rules M6 and M16 in CESMM3. This had been a significant point in

dispute during the adjudication and had been highlighted as such in the defender’s written

submissions. The adjudicator had simply determined that a bulk excavation was required

by the contract, and then awarded the pursuer’s full claim and dismissed the counterclaim.

In so doing the adjudicator had failed to address points 1 and 5 in the defender’s response to

[20] It could not be maintained that the measurement argument had been considered and

impliedly rejected. The two issues were discrete: the first was a question of contractual

interpretation; the second concerned the measurement of the sum due to the pursuer on the

assumption that its argument on interpretation was preferred (as it was). The adjudicator

may have misunderstood his jurisdiction; it appeared from the email correspondence that

he had applied his mind to the extent of his jurisdiction and concluded that it was restricted

to the interpretation point. It was unlikely that he had simply missed the point altogether,

because it had been expressly drawn to his attention. In the circumstances, the presumption

[21] There was English case law to the effect that a failure by an adjudicator to address a

question referred to him might render his decision unenforceable, but only if the failure was

deliberate. However, that case law should be approached with caution in Scotland. It

appeared to consist of cases in which the ground of challenge was breach of natural justice,

as opposed to failure to exhaust jurisdiction. The Scottish courts had not gone down the line

of distinguishing between deliberate and inadvertent failure, perhaps because the usual

ground of challenge was failure to exhaust jurisdiction. There was no good reason to draw a

distinction between deliberate and inadvertent failure. If, however, it was considered

appropriate to make such a distinction, the present case was properly to be regarded as a

[22] Alternatively, if it were to be held that the adjudicator had not failed to exhaust his

jurisdiction, then he had failed to give adequate, or indeed any, reasons for rejecting the

[23] On behalf of the pursuer it was submitted that the defence was irrelevant and that

the adjudicator’s decision should be enforced by the granting of decree de plano. It was

obvious that the adjudicator had addressed the defender’s CESMM3 argument. The

adjudicator’s analysis of the dispute was that the scope of the pursuer’s instruction was the

primary issue. His use of the words “Therefore, I also decide” in paragraph 72 showed that

he regarded the pursuer’s entitlement to payment as a separate issue from the scope of

instruction. His approach of treating the issues of “scope of instruction” and “entitlement to

payment” as inextricably linked was readily capable of being understood. The defender had

accepted that the scope of instruction was relevant in assessing the pursuer’s entitlement to

payment. Whether the adjudicator was correct, as a matter of law, to regard it as the most

important factor was irrelevant. Any error of law in taking that approach would be

intra vires and would not provide a basis for resisting enforcement. Rejection of the

defender’s argument was also implicit in the adjudicator’s decision on the central issue

referred to him, which was to accept that the works should be measured and valued in

[24] If the court was in any doubt as to whether the CESMM3 argument had been

considered and rejected, regard should be had (i) to the presumption of regularity; (ii) to it

being inherently unlikely that the adjudicator would fail to consider an argument which

featured prominently in the defender’s submissions and in email correspondence, and

which the adjudicator had summarised at paragraphs 36 and 38; and (iii) to the nature of

adjudication, which could be a “rough and ready” process that did not demand the same

level of reasoning as a judicial decision. The issues referred to the adjudicator had been

[25] In any event, even if the adjudicator had not considered a relevant defence

argument, this was not a case of deliberate exclusion or refusal to address. On that basis,

and in light of the line of English authority on inadvertent failure to exhaust jurisdiction, the

[26] The legal principles applicable to enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision were

largely a matter of agreement between the parties. They include the following:

● The intention of Parliament in enacting the Housing Grants, Construction and

Regeneration Act 1996 was to introduce a speedy mechanism for settling disputes

in construction contracts on a provisional interim basis, and requiring the

decisions of adjudicators to be enforced pending the final determination of

disputes by litigation, arbitration or agreement: Macob Civil Engineering Ltd v

● The objective which underlies the 1996 Act and the statutory Scheme requires the

courts to respect and enforce the adjudicator’s decision unless it is plain that the

question which he has decided was not the question referred to him, or the

manner in which he has gone about his task is obviously unfair. It should only

be in rare circumstances that the courts will interfere by refusing to enforce an

adjudicator’s decision. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the proper course

for the party who is unsuccessful in an adjudication must be to pay the amount

that he has been ordered to pay by the adjudicator: Carillion Construction Ltd v

Devonport Dockyard Ltd [2006] BLR 15, Chadwick LJ at paragraphs 85-87;

● If an adjudicator’s decision on an issue referred to him is wrong, whether because

he erred on the facts or the law, or because in reaching his decision he made a

procedural error, it is still an enforceable decision on the issue referred: Macob

(above), Dyson J at page 98. This applies even where the error in the

adjudicator’s decision is plain from the reasons given: Bouygues UK Ltd v

Dahl-Jensen UK Ltd [2000] BLR 522, Buxton LJ at paragraphs 11-15; Chadwick LJ

● The scope of an adjudication is defined by the notice of adjudication, together

with any ground founded upon by the responding party to justify its position in

defence of the claim made: Construction Centre Group Ltd v Highland Council 2002

SLT 174, Lord Macfadyen at paragraph 19. If a responding party in adjudication

proceedings raises a line of defence to a claim made against it, the adjudicator

requires to deal with it: Connaught Partnerships Ltd (in administration) v Perth &

● There is however no requirement for an adjudicator expressly to address every

point taken by the parties in their submissions. The court should not put a fine

tooth comb through the adjudicator’s decision, seeking to ensure that every

single point has been addressed. It is necessary to take a more broad-based

approach, looking at the dispute that was referred and the result. It is not a

breach of natural justice if one particular sub-issue is not referred to in the

decision: Coulson, Construction Adjudication (4th ed, 2018), paragraphs 13-53

[27] Parties were not, however, in agreement as to the circumstances in which the court

may refuse to enforce an adjudicator’s decision on the ground of failure to exhaust

jurisdiction. On behalf of the pursuer it was accepted that failure to exhaust jurisdiction

might render a decision unenforceable, but it was contended that that could be so only

where the failure was deliberate and not inadvertent. In support of that proposition,

reference was made to the judgment of Coulson J in Pilon Ltd v Breyer Group plc

“…22.1 The adjudicator must attempt to answer the question referred to him. The

question may consist of a number of separate sub-issues. If the adjudicator has

endeavoured generally to address those issues in order to answer the question then,

whether right or wrong, his decision is enforceable: see Carillion v Devonport.

22.2 If the adjudicator fails to address the question referred to him because he has

taken an erroneously restrictive view of his jurisdiction (and has, for example, failed

even to consider the defence to the claim or some fundamental element of it), th en

that may make his decision unenforceable, either on grounds of jurisdiction or

natural justice: see [Ballast plc v The Burrell Company (Construction Management)

Ltd 2001 SCLR 837], [Broadwell v k3D [2006] ADJ CS 04/21], and [Thermal Energy

Construction Ltd v AE and E Lentjes UK Ltd [2009] EWHC 408 (TCC)].

22.3 However, for that result to obtain, the adjudicator's failure must be deliberate.

If there has simply been an inadvertent failure to consider one of a number of issues

embraced by the single dispute that the adjudicator has to decide, then such a failure

will not ordinarily render the decision unenforceable: see Bouygues and Amec v

[28] A distinction between deliberate and inadvertent failure to consider an issue was not

expressly drawn in either Bouygues UK Ltd v Dahl-Jensen UK Ltd or Amec Group Ltd v Thames

Water Utilities Ltd. Bouygues was concerned with a patent arithmetical error by the

adjudicator, which was held not to render his decision unenforceable. Amec v TWUL,

another decision of Coulson J, contained the following analysis at paragraphs 86-88:

“86 Thus there are two strands of authority. If the adjudicator makes an error of

calculation his decision will still be enforced (see, for example, Bouygues). But if he

fails to address the critical element of the dispute, his decision will not be enforced

(see, for example, Ballast and [Quartzelec Ltd v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd

[2009] BLR 328 ). There was at least a suggestion in this case that these authorities may be

87 In my judgment there is no inconsistency between these two lines of authority. If

an adjudicator wrongly fails to have regard to the responding party's defence to the

claim, because he erroneously thought that he could not do so (as for example

happened in Broadwell), then he was not addressing the question that had been asked

of him. He manifestly could not engage with the dispute that had been referred if he

was failing to consider the responding party's defence to the claiming party's claim.

Of course, such a conclusion can only be reached by the court ‘in the plainest cases’

88 On the other hand, if the adjudicator sought to answer the right question and

engage with the dispute that had arisen between the parties, even if in so doing he

made a mistake and forgot something or gave undue significance to something else,

then that decision was still enforceable and no jurisdictional issue or breach of

natural justice could arise (see Bouygues). There is a significant difference in law

between, on the one hand, not answering the right question at all and, on the other,

[29] The distinction between deliberate and inadvertent failure to address an issue

(including a critical defence) was further discussed by Jefford J in RGB P&C Limited v Victory

House General Partner Limited [2019] EWHC 1188 (TCC) at paragraph 53:

“The analysis in Pilon v Breyer left open the possibility that an inadvertent failure to

consider one of a number of issues might render a decision in breach of natural

justice, but it would not ordinarily do so, and it is difficult to identify any case in

which a decision has not been enforced for such a reason. The only example

identified in Construction Adjudication is the decision of the Outer House in Whyte and

MacKay v Blyth and Blyth Consulting Engineers [2013] CSOH 54. The rarity of such

cases seems to me to be for two reasons. Firstly, an inadvertent failure to address a

particular issue is in the nature of an error within the adjudicator's jurisdiction rather

than a breach of the rules of natural justice. Secondly, and if that is wrong, it would

be an unusual case where the court would both draw the inference that an issue had

not been addressed and conclude that the failure to address the issue was so

significant that it meant that the adjudicator had not decided the dispute referred to

him and/or that the conduct of the adjudication was so unfair that the decision

should not enforced. The more significant the issue, the less likely it is to be

inadvertently overlooked; the less significant it is, the more likely it is that it has

For my part, and with respect to Jefford J, I find this analysis somewhat difficult to reconcile

with the clear distinction drawn in Bouygues (by Chadwick LJ at paragraph 27) and in

AMEC v TWUL (by Coulson J at paragraph 88, above) between not answering the right

question at all and answering the right question but in the wrong w ay. Whilst I respectfully

share Jefford J’s difficulty in envisaging situations in which an inadvertent failure to

consider an issue could constitute a breach of natural justice, it does not appear to me to be

necessary to characterise every failure by an adjudicator to answer a question that he was

[30] More recently, the test for unenforceability based on an inadvertent failure was

considered by Stuart Smith J in KNN Coburn LLP v GD Holdings Ltd 2013 EWHC 2879 (TCC),

“It will be noted that an inadvertent failure to consider one of a number of issues will

‘ordinarily’ not render the decision unenforceable. This qualification admits the

possibility that an inadvertent failure may in an extraordinary case bring the

principle into play. No clear guidance is available about when an inadvertent failure

will render the decision unenforceable. Since the essence of the adjudication process

is that the real dispute between the parties should be resolved, it seems to me that

the touchstone should be whether the inadvertent failure means that the adjudicator

has not effectively addressed the major issues raised on either side…”

[31] A distinction between deliberate and inadvertent failure to address the critical issues

does not, in my view, emerge clearly from the Scottish case law. The approach in Scotland

was reviewed by Lord Clark in Field Systems Designs Ltd v MW High Tech Projects UK

Ltd [2020] CSOH 17 (and again in Hochtief Solutions AG v Maspero Elevatori SpA

[2020] CSOH 102, a decision issued since the hearing in the present case). Lord Clark’s conclusion

was that the test adopted by Lord Doherty in DC Community Partnerships Ltd v Renfrewshire

Council [2017] CSOH 143 at paragraph 24 and by Lady Wolffe in NKT Cables A/S v SP Power

Systems Ltd 2017 SLT 494 at paragraphs 113-114 was akin to the “touchstone” identified by

Stuart Smith J in KNN Coburn LLP v GD Holdings Ltd above, ie that the adjudicator has not

effectively addressed the major issues raised on either side. I respectfully agree, and I note

that the application of such a test is entirely consistent with earlier decisions of this court in

Ballast plc v The Burrell Company (Construction Management) Ltd (above) (Lord Reed at

paragraphs 39-42); RBG Ltd v SGL Carbon Fibers Ltd 2010 SLT 631 (Lord Menzies at

paragraph 28); SGL Carbon Fibers Ltd v RBG Ltd 2011 SLT 417 (Lord Glennie at

paragraph 46); and Whyte and Mackay Ltd v Blyth & Blyth Consulting Engineers Ltd (above)

[32] The dispute before the adjudicator raised four issues for determination, namely

(i) whether the Works Information required the pursuer to carry out a bulk excavation,

disposal and fill; (ii) if so, how that work was to be measured in terms of CESMM3; (iii) the

quantities that the pursuer had to be valued and paid; and (iv) the defender’s counterclaim.

There is no doubt that the adjudicator addressed issues (i), (iii) and (iv). However, in my

opinion, he did not effectively address issue (ii), or indeed address it at all. It is clear that

this was a critical issue raised by the defender in its response to the referral, which had to be

addressed by the adjudicator when reaching his decision. In its response, again in its

rejoinder, and again in the email sent to the adjudicator on 16 July 2020, the defender

emphasised that its primary contention was that even if the pursuer was correct that the

Works Information required a bulk excavation, disposal and filling, CESMM3 was

applicable and restricted the volume measured for both the excavation and the filling to the

volume occupied by (including beneath) or vertically above any part of the foundation. The

adjudicator simply did not address that argument, and in failing to do so, in my opinion, he

failed to exhaust his jurisdiction, and his decision cannot be enforced.

[33] I reject the pursuer’s argument that the adjudicator was entitled to treat the two

issues as inextricably linked; they were obviously quite separate. His view on the first was

in no way determinative of his view on the second. I also reject the argument that the words

“Therefore, I also decide” in paragraph 72 afford an indication that he considered and

decided the second issue, albeit without giving specific reasons. On the contrary, it appears

to me that those words confirm that the adjudicator regarded his decision on the proper

interpretation of the Works Information as determinative of the merits of the dispute,

leaving only the parties’ quantities and the counterclaim to be addressed thereafter.

Reading the decision as a whole it is obvious that the adjudicator did not engage with the

CESMM3 argument at all, and there is no basis for applying the presumption of regularity.

[34] For the reasons that I have already given, I am not persuaded that it is necessary to

characterise the adjudicator’s failure to exhaust jurisdiction as deliberate before it can be

held to be unenforceable. If, however, I were wrong about that, I would hold that the fa ilure

in the present case is fairly characterised as deliberate. On two separate occasions the

adjudicator put it to the parties that he considered that the decision he had to make was

whether the Works Information instructed the pursuer to undertake bulk earthworks, or not.

On both occasions the defender replied, insisting that the adjudicator also had to decide the

issue of the applicable contractual method of measurement. On the second of those

occasions, this elicited a terse response from the adjudicator that the defender had failed to

understand the question that he had asked. In these circumstances, if it were necessary to

decide that the failure to exhaust jurisdiction was deliberate, then I would be minded to do

[35] In the light of my decision on failure to exhaust jurisdiction, it is unnecessary for me

to consider the defender’s alternative argument based on inadequacy of reasons. As senior

counsel for the defender acknowledged, if (as I have found) the adjudicator failed to address

the critical issue, no question of adequacy or inadequacy of reasoning can logically arise.

Given the admittedly rough and ready nature of adjudication, and the fact that an

adjudicator’s decision is enforceable even if the question referred has been wrongly

answered, it will be rare for a reasons challenge to succeed if an argument based on failure

to exhaust jurisdiction has been rejected. In the circumstances of the present case it seems to

me that the question of adequacy of reasoning is entirely hypothetical, and I need say no

[36] Finally, I should note that the pursuer presented a “severability” argument in the

eventuality that I held that either of the defender’s arguments was well-founded in relation

to backfill (Point 5 of the defender’s response to the referral) but not in relation to excavation

(Point 1 of the response). It was submitted, in that eventuality, that the adjudicator’s

decision in relation to backfill was severable, on the basis of the test applied by the court in

Dickie & Moore Limited v Trustees of the Lauren McLeish Discretionary Trust [2020] CSIH 38,

ie whether, approaching the matter in a flexible and practical manner, there was a core

nucleus of the decision that was untainted by the unenforceable part and which might

therefore be safely enforced. On behalf of the defender it was accepted, under reference to

the value of the respective works, that the adjudicator’s decision in relation to backfill was

severable. I would not therefore have had to decide this point, had it arisen.

[37] For these reasons, I hold that the adjudicator’s decision must be set aside

ope exceptionis. I shall repel the pursuer’s pleas in law, sustain the defender’s fourth plea,

and grant decree of absolvitor. Questions of expenses are reserved.

Scottish Court of Session Decisions