The defenders obtained a decision by an adjudicator that the pursuers should pay them the sum of £141,000. The pursuers failed to comply with the decision and the defenders sought enforcement. Shortly before the hearing the pursuers delivered a cheque for the full amount, and simultaneously lodged an arrestment for the sum of £182,000 for damages in respect of the defenders alleged breaches. The pursuers had alleged defective work before the adjudicator. The defenders applied for the recall of the arrestment on the grounds that it was oppressive and defeated the implementation of the adjudicator's decision.

It was held that protective measures could not be used pending court proceedings in security for claims previously before the adjudicator. Arrestment is a protective measure whereby funds can be frozen in the hands of a third party pending outcome of the action.

It appears that Scottish courts are following those in England in giving support to the adjudicator's decisions.

The Claimants applied for summary judgement to enforce an adjudicator's decision in respect of payment of professional fees.

The application was dismissed.

Whereas the adjudicator had concluded that a binding contract had been formed, the judge held that it was arguable that there was no contract between the parties because the scope of work and the level of fees had not been agreed.

Since the starting point for an adjudicator's jurisdiction is the contract between the parties it is essential for adjudication to operate to ensure that a contract is in place if you want to have the comfort of knowing that the HGCRA operates.

Application for adjudication under the HGCRA has been brought within the scope of the Insolvency Act 1986 following a decision by the High Court. The effect is to make leave of the court necessary if the responding party is in administration.

The judge concluded that adjudication proceedings were quasi-legal proceedings and were, therefore, other proceedings within section 11(3) of the Insolvency Act.

The fact that an arbitrator practised out of the same chambers as counsel instructed on behalf of a party who appointed the arbitrator did not give rise to circumstances that could give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality. After giving consideration in the Pinochet case the judge found that there was no question of partiality on the part of the arbitrator.

A conflict of interests only arose as an impediment when the same person undertook conflicting duties to different clients, or put himself in a position where his duty to his client conflicted with his own self interest.

The plaintiffs purchase a new house from the defendant. There was an NHBC agreement which contained an arbitration clause.

The defendant's application for a stay to arbitration was refused because the arbitration agreement was contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1994.

The arbitration agreement was in effect imposed on the plaintiff because they had not had the opportunity to consider or to negotiate the clause. The clause hindered or excluded the plaintiffs right to take legal action and was contrary to the regulations.

Note that the case is only relevant where one party is a consumer. Those who resort to the regulations should note, in particular, Schedule 1.