D engaged C to carry out the design and construction of a shopping centre. The contract incorporated the JCT Standard Form of Building Contract with Contracted Design (1998 edition) with amendments. A dispute arose between the parties as to whether B had performed work that entitled it to additional payment. The dispute was referred to adjudication. The adjudicator found in C’s favour. C applied for summary judgment to enforce the adjudicator's decision. D applied for summary judgment on its counterclaim for liquidated damages and its application to set off that counterclaim against C's claims.

Coulson J held that, although the adjudicator had stated that his decision was not ‘reasoned’, his decision was in fact a clear and cogent document. The adjudicator had addressed D's secondary defence (that payment should be through the final account process rather than by way of an interim payment) by deciding that C was entitled to be paid within seven days, not during the final account process. C was therefore entitled to summary judgment to enforce the adjudicator's award. D's application for summary judgment on its claim to set off liquidated damages against amounts owed to C was likely to fail. In compliance with the contract, D had issued C with a notice of the amount it proposed to pay on the relevant certificate and once that had been done, the contract expressly provided that D would have to pay that sum. It would be contrary to the Act if an employer could flout the withholding notice regime. Where there was no withholding notice, the employer should pay the sum due without recourse to counterclaims. C was therefore entitled to summary judgment for the interim payment, and D could not set off its counterclaim against sums due to C.