The Court held that an adjudicator who, having rejected the respondent's submissions, simply adopted the claimant's valuation without independently determining what construction work had been carried out and its value, failed to perform the essential statutory function required under the Security of Payment Act, rendering the determination void. The Court declared the determination void and granted injunctive relief restraining enforcement. The Court declined to consider remittal of the matter to the adjudicator, holding that such relief required a cross-claim and proper notice to the adjudicator, and that remittal was unavailable where only declaratory and injunctive relief (rather than certiorari) was granted; the broader question of whether remittal is available under the Security of Payment Act scheme was expressly left unresolved.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 13 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 13 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.