May and Baker engaged Arcadis to carry out remediation works at its site in Dagenham. During the course of the works, it became apparent that additional remedial works would be required beyond the northern and southern boundaries of the site, albeit this was land owned by May and Baker.

A dispute arose as to Arcadis’ entitlement for the northern boundary works and they referred the dispute to adjudication. The adjudicator awarded Arcadis £412,000 and a 12-day extension of time. May and Baker complied with the decision.

A subsequent dispute arose in relation to Arcadis’ entitlement for the southern boundary works and they again referred the matter to adjudication. A different adjudicator was appointed and he awarded Arcadis the sum of £480,000. In reaching his decision, the adjudicator noted he had a duty to consider the extent to which the decision in the first adjudication bound him.

May and Baker failed to comply with the second adjudicator’s decision and Arcadis commenced enforcement proceedings. May and Baker argued that there had been a breach of natural justice.

The Court rejected May and Baker’s arguments, holding that the adjudicator:

(i) had not taken an erroneously restrictive view of his own jurisdiction when he considered the first adjudicator’s decision;
(ii) had not gone off on a frolic of his own by splitting the difference between the Project Manager’s and Arcadis’ forecasts;
(iii) had not failed to consider May and Baker’s defence on delay.
(iv) had not exhibited apparent bias in considering the first adjudicator’s decision.

Accordingly, the award was enforced.