In Nolan Davis Limited v Steven P Catton (2000) TCC the issue was whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction to decide disputes arising from demolition and reconstruction works carried out by Nolan in Haul Green Village at Wooton on the Isle of Wight.

It was common ground between the parties that Nolan did not intend to contract with Mr Catton personally.  In proceedings before the Adjudicator it was never contended by Mr Catton that no contracts were ever concluded, but that two contracts had been made with one of the several companies with which Mr Catton was associated. It was agreed in the adjudication proceedings that the Adjudicator would decide as a preliminary point whether Mr Catton was personally liable under either of the two contracts, and if so would hear each of the referred claims upon their merits.  The Adjudicator found that Mr Catton was personally liable on the contract for demolition works by virtue of the operation of Section 349 of the Companies Act 1985.  He also found Mr Catton personally liable on the construction contract by virtue of the operation of either Section 36(c) or Section 349 of the Companies Act 1985.  Having so found the Adjudicator made his awards including costs.

In the enforcement proceedings, Mr Catton contended that there was no contract between himself and Nolan and that the Adjudicator had no jurisdiction.

His Honour Judge David Wilcox held that the parties had agreed to be bound by the adjudicator's decision as to jurisdiction.  By necessary implication (had the evidence justified it) it would have been open for the adjudicator to find that in relation to one or other of the contracts relied upon by Nolan that no agreement had in fact been concluded.  This was more so since mistake was actively canvassed before him in the submissions of Mr Catton.  There was no arguable case that the parties were in error as to the identity of whom they were contracting with.  In any event since that was a question that the parties referred to the Adjudicator and having regard to his reasoned decision which was within his competence, it was not for the Court to go behind his decision A&D Maintenance and Construction Limited v Pagehurst Construction Services Limited. 

As to the award of costs, there were cross submissions to the Adjudicator on the issue of costs.  It was held that it could be inferred from the evidence that the parties had conferred upon the Adjudicator the authority to give a decision as to costs and the award of costs was properly made Northern Developments (Cumbria) Ltd v J&J Nichol (2000) TCC.