Eaves had engaged Gipping to build two timber framed bungalows on a plot of land in Ipswich, pursuant to a JCT Prime Cost Contract incorporating amendments 1 to 5. They disagreed about whether the bungalows were in fact complete and free of defects, and consequently the amount, if any, that was owed to Gipping.

The dispute was referred to adjudication. The adjudicator awarded Gipping £59,582.86 plus interest and the adjudicator's fees. Eaves did not pay Gipping any part of this amount, and Gipping issued enforcement proceedings on 6 November 2008.

Mr Justice Ramsey made an order on 10 November for the hearing to take place on 27 November, and that Gipping shall:

"...as soon as practicable after receipt of this order serve upon [Eaves] the claim form and response back, this order and [Gipping's] application pursuant to Part 24 and [Gipping's] evidence in support."

Gipping's solicitors, served these documents by letter dated 17 November. On 27 November Eaves applied for an adjournment of the hearing which was granted until 11 December 2008. During this time Eaves took legal advice and consequently entered a skeleton argument indicating that:

"The defendant has had the benefit of taking legal advice since the last hearing and has accepted that judgment be entered in effect for the sums claimed".

Eaves did seek to argue, however, that the Adjudicator had breached the rules of natural justice by not making a site visit to inspect the defects and, in particular, whether the defects were design or workmanship faults.

Mr Justice Akenhead held that there was no breach of the rules of natural justice. It has long been decided by the courts that adjudication is only meant to be a form of rough justice. The adjudicator has a short time period in which to produce a reasoned decision and may not always be as thorough as a full trial. The decision to visit a site is within the adjudicator's discretion in the circumstances, and in this instance the adjudicator decided in good faith that he had sufficient evidence in front of him to make a decision in respect of the defects. The court should not be entitled to criticise that decision.

The judge had two further matters to consider. Eaves had applied for an extension of time in which to pay the judgement. Mr Justice Akenhead stated that the normal rule is that judgment sums should be paid within 14 days unless the judge otherwise orders.

"It seems to me that the following principles or practice can and should apply. First, if a party wishes to persuade the court that a period greater than 14 days should be allowed for payment, it is necessary that that application is supported by proper evidence. Secondly, it is much better generally that, if there is a genuine problem about the defendant paying, or being able to pay, that that is a matter first fully discussed on a "without prejudice" or even open basis between the parties. Ultimately, of course, the court can be asked to rule upon it, but it is much better if commercial parties meet and discuss the issue between themselves and it would only be if they were unable to agree that the court should consider an alternative longer period. It is unlikely that mere inability to pay will suffice to justify the extension of the normal fourteen day period; usually, inability to pay is no defence and an insolvent debtor must take the usual consequences of its insolvency."

On the facts there was not sufficient evidence presented by Eaves about its ability to pay, and that because the Court wished to encourage dialogue between the parties he would not order an extension. However, the judge did give permission for Eaves to apply to extend the 14 day period at a later date in case these discussions broke down.

Finally, Eaves had challenged the costs claimed by Gipping. Gipping had put forward solicitor's costs of £3,202 and Counsel's fees for the two hearings, £630 for the earlier hearing, and £350 for the current hearing. Eaves challenged Gipping's counsel's fee for the earlier hearing, and the court fee. Gipping argued that as it was a summary judgement hearing that the Court should award indemnity costs.

Mr Justice Akenhead decided that due to the delays in service of the above documents by Gipping's solicitors, Eaves had insufficient time to respond prior to the hearing on 27 November 2008. He also decided that 12 hours for time spent on documents seemed unreasonably high, considering the simplicity of the case, and so reduced the net sum payable for costs to £3,400.