Opecprime engaged Discain to carry out steelwork. A dispute arose between the parties regarding payment and the letters which indicated that Opecprime did not intend to pay Discain were not from Opecprime but from an associated company. Discain referred the matter to adjudication. During the adjudication, an employee of Discain twice telephoned the Adjudicator and held private conversations during which substantive issues concerning the adjudication were discussed. The conversations was not recorded and communicated to Opecprime. The Adjudicator subsequently made a decision in Discan’s favour.

At enforcement, the Judge held that a dispute had arisen between the parties as it was possible for a dispute to arise before the payment obligation had arisen. The dispute had arisen when the paying party did not pay. The fact that the time period within which the paying party was entitled to pay had not expired did not mean that there was a dispute between the parties. Further, it was possible for there to be a dispute where the letters sent indicating a dispute did not actually come from Opecprime. The parties understood that the letters were being written on Opecprime’s behalf.

However, the Judge did not enforce the Adjudicator’s decision as there was a very serious risk of bias because the Adjudicator had failed to consult with one party on important submissions that had been made by the other party. Although it was a question of fact and degree in each case, in this case it constituted a breach of the rules of natural justice as the Adjudicator had overstretched the rules.