An adjudication was commenced in respect of alleged professional negligence. The defendant to the adjudication, RJT, asserted that the agreement was not in writing and therefore the dispute did not fall under the Act. The adjudicator considered the argument, and decided that although the contract was oral, it had been evidenced in writing and was therefore caught by the Act. RJT sought a declaration that the agreement was not an agreement in writing for the purposes of the Act. The parties agreed that the actual agreement itself was oral.

The question was whether it had been evidenced in writing under section 107 of the Act. Judge Mackay refused the declaration, holding that the "extensive documentary evidence" in the form of a fee account records of the names of the client and identity of the place of work, minutes of meetings and correspondence, was sufficient to bring it within adjudication proceedings.

The question of just how little will amount to an agreement in writing for the purposes of the Act remains. For example, will a note on a "scrap of paper" or an invoice after the completion of the work suffice?