Court refuses to enforce adjudicator's decision in Pilon v Breyer [2010]

In Pilon Limited v Breyer Group Plc [2010] EWHC 837(TCC), Coulson J held that an adjudicator's decision to exclude aspects of the defence was erroneous and breached the rules of natural justice. If the adjudicator failed to address the question referred to him because he took an erroneously restrictive view of his jurisdiction (and had for example failed even to consider the defence to the claim or some fundamental element of it), that failure might make his decision unenforceable on grounds of jurisdiction or natural justice. Whilst an adjudicator’s inadvertent mistake when answering the question put to him does not ordinarily affect the enforcement of his decision (see the Court of Appeal’s decision in Bouygues v Dahl-Jensen [2000] BLR 49), if the adjudicator:

• considers and purports to decide an issue which is outside his jurisdiction, his decision will not be enforced (see Sindall v Solland[2001] 80 Con LR 152); or
• takes an erroneously restrictive view of his own jurisdiction, with the result that he decides not to consider an important element of the dispute referred to him, this failure is usually categorised as a breach of natural justice.

This is an unusual case as it is relatively rare for a court to refuse to enforce an adjudicator's decision. In light of this judgment, parties should consider carefully the scope of the dispute that they refer to adjudication.