Local Government Lawyer Home Page

Sharpe Edge Webpage Banner

Welcome to Sharpe Edge, Sharpe Pritchard’s local government legal hub on Local Government Lawyer.

Sharpe Edge features news, views and analysis from our team of specialist local government lawyers working at the heart of the latest legal developments. Sharpe Edge platform is also the only place where local government lawyers can get e-access to two law books by our Head of Local Government Rob Hann: The Guide to Local Authority Charging and Trading Powers (‘LACAT’) and The Guide to Local Authority Companies and Partnerships (‘LACAP’).



Slide background

The limits of an adjudicator's jurisdiction

Icons CourtDr Paul Hughes and Anna Sidebottom look at the effect of Prater v Sisk [2021] on the ability of an Adjudicator to rely on previous 'out of jurisdiction' decisions between the same parties

The recently decided case of Prater v Sisk confirms that an Adjudicator’s decision is enforceable in circumstances where it is based (in part) on a previously decided decision, which the defendant alleges was made without jurisdiction. It also provides helpful commentary on the broad definition of dispute and interpretation of NEC3 Option W2 with regards to multiple adjudication referrals.


The claimant (Prater) applied for summary judgment for the enforcement of an Adjudicator’s decision. The adjudication was commenced under Option W2 of the NEC3 Conditions of Subcontract, option A (2013).

The parties had entered a Subcontract for works to a new aircraft hangar at London Gatwick Airport. The Subcontract works were subject to delay and changes and resulted in a number of separate adjudications.

An earlier Adjudicator’s decision was of particular significance to the application. In that earlier adjudication Prater sought decisions in relation to: (a) the correct Subcontract Completion Date; (b) provisional sums within the Contract; and (c) Sisk’s entitlement to deductions for indirect losses.

In the present matter Prater sought payment which (in part) relied on the findings of that earlier adjudication. The Adjudicator awarded Prater a significant sum.

The parties’ respective cases

Sisk argued that the earlier decision was not binding as the referral did not relate to a single dispute but to three separate disputes and therefore that the Adjudicator did not have jurisdiction. Accordingly, Sisk submitted that the Adjudicator did not have jurisdiction in the present matter as it was partly based on the findings of an earlier adjudication.

Prater argued that the earlier adjudication was binding and enforceable as a matter of principle and contractual obligation unless challenged in the Court. Prater submitted that there were no valid grounds to challenge the Adjudicator’s jurisdiction because a challenge to an Adjudicator’s jurisdiction in an earlier referral did not constitute a valid challenge in a subsequent referral. Prater contended that the earlier adjudication stemmed from numerous issues arising out of a single disputed payment certificate and not multiple disputes.


The issues for the Court to decide were as follows:

Whether a lack of jurisdiction in relation to an earlier adjudication decision was capable of impugning the Adjudicator’s decision in a subsequent adjudication, where that subsequent decision was made (in part) on the findings of the earlier decision. If so, whether the Adjudicator did indeed lack jurisdiction in relation to that earlier decision.

Buehrlen J held that the Adjudicator’s decision was enforceable and should be upheld, finding that the Adjudicator had the relevant jurisdiction to make the decision whether or not an earlier decision upon which it relied was made without jurisdiction.

The principal points in that judgment can be summarised under the following headings:

Issue 1 – The Adjudicator’s jurisdiction in the subsequent adjudication

Buehrlen J agreed with Prater that “until an adjudication decision is challenged, either in arbitration or in court, it is binding on the parties”. Clause W2.3(11) of the Subcontract, under which the referral had been made, expressly stated that the Adjudicator’s decision is binding unless revised by the tribunal. Sisk had served a Notice of Dissatisfaction under WC2.4(2) of the Subcontract but had not taken any further steps to refer the earlier decision to the Court. The earlier decision was therefore binding on the parties and enforceable by Prater until successfully challenged by Sisk.

With regard to whether a decision that lacked the requisite jurisdiction made a subsequent adjudication a nullity, Buehrlen J found it did not. It fell to the aggrieved party (in this case, Sisk) to challenge the underlying decision, and unless and until it did that an adjudication decision would be binding on the parties and in any subsequent adjudications.

Issue 2 – Whether the Adjudicator lacked jurisdiction in the earlier adjudication

As to whether the Adjudicator lacked jurisdiction in relation to the earlier adjudication, the Buehrlen J found that the issues which were the subject of the earlier adjudication did not comprise multiple disputes.

The judgment clarified Akenhead J’s guidance in the Witney Town Council v Beam Construction (Cheltenham) Ltd [2011] EWHC 2332 (TCC) case as to what constitutes a single dispute. A dispute may comprise several distinct issues, which may be capable of being decided independently. A common sense approach should be used when determining the meaning of ‘dispute’. In this case, Buehrlen J found that the issues which were the subject of the earlier adjudication formed part of a larger dispute.

In reaching these conclusions, the Buehrlen J was obliged to take account of whether the Adjudicator had jurisdiction under NEC3 Option W2 to deal with more than one dispute in a single adjudication. Buehrlen J found that as a matter of contractual interpretation, there was no basis for the proposition that more than one dispute could be referred. The parties had not expressly agreed to more than one dispute being referred in a single adjudication and the drafting of NEC3 Option 2 certainly did not support that.


The case highlights the importance of promptly challenging an Adjudicator’s decision where a party contends that the Adjudicator lacked jurisdiction. Parties cannot use a subsequent adjudication enforcement hearing to open up and challenge an earlier Adjudicator’s decision.

Dr Paul Hughes is a senior associate and Anna Sidebottom a trainee solicitor at Sharpe Pritchard LLP.

For further insight and resources on local government legal issues from Sharpe Pritchard, please visit the SharpeEdge page by clicking on the banner below.

sharpe edge 600x100

This article is for general awareness only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. The law may have changed since this page was first published. If you would like further advice and assistance in relation to any issue raised in this article, please contact us by telephone or email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

LACAT BookFREE download!

A Guide to Local Authority Charging and Trading Powers

Written and edited by Sharpe Pritchard’s Head of Local Government, Rob Hann,

A Guide to Local Authority Charging and Trading Powers covers:

• Updated charging powers compendium          • Commercial trading options

• Teckal ‘public to public’                                    • Localism Act


LACAT BookAvailable to buy:

A Guide to Local Authority Companies and Partnerships

An invaluable, comprehensive toolkit for lawyers, law firms and others advising
on or participating in Local Authority Companies and Partnerships”

- Local Authority Chief Executive


  More Articles

Icons House

The Subsidy Control Bill

Ryan Copeland and James Hughes analyse the main provisions of the Subsidy Control Bill announced in the recent Queen’s speech.
Icons Court

Councils unable to hold meetings remotely from 7th May

Radhika Devesher considers the fallout from the High Court's decision that online council meetings cannot continue past 7th May and outlines the practical steps that councils can take to ensure that the decision-making process is not adversely affected.
Icons Court

You can’t claim that! Court finds exclusion clauses work just like any other clause

The recent case of Mott MacDonald Limited v Trant Engineering Limited serves as a timely reminder that exclusion clauses in construction contracts can and do work and will be enforced by the courts to prevent what may otherwise be valid claims write Clare Mendelle and James Goldthorpe.
Icons Date

Sparks Flying: Increasing Network Connectivity For Tenants

Lillee Reid-Hunt, James Nelson and Natasha Barlow look at the potential impact of The Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Act 2021 on reducing delays in the installation of telecommunications equipment to leasehold properties.
Icons House

Subcontract held to govern works commenced before execution

Clare Mendelle and James Goldthorpe examine a case which considered which terms governed liability for works carried out prior to the execution of a contract.
Icons Court

No overlap between substance and jurisdictional issues

Clare Mendelle and James Goldthorpe examine the implications of Ex Novo Limited v MPS Housing Limited [2020] EWHC 3804 (TCC)]
Icons Court

Home is where the heart is

Bernadette Hillman and Christos Paphiti outline the new permitted development right and what it means for the property sector and planners
Icons Date

Can a worker get paid for sleeping?

Some jobs such as care workers, security guards and nightwatchmen require the individual to work night shifts where they may, with the approval of their employer, sleep during some or all of the shift, but nevertheless remain on standby during that time.
Icons Date

Can you decline to sponsor skilled workers under the new immigration rules?

Is there an obligation to consider resident workforce prior to employing migrants? Julie Bann and Aleksandra Wolek report.
Icons House

The Long Goodbye to the PFI

Rob Hann, Sharpe Pritchard’s Head of Local Government takes a look at the House of Common’s Public Account Committees’ recent report into the pending expiry of PFI contracts which contains some interesting recommendations….
Icons Court

Changes to the Electronic Communications Code

The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has commenced a consultation on changes to the Electronic Communications Code 2017 (the “Code”). James Nelson, Lillee Reid-Hunt and Natasha Barlow report.
Icons Court

The Heat Networks (Scotland) Bill

Until last week the heat network sector in Scotland was not specifically regulated. The recent Heat Networks (Scotland) Bill seeks to rectify this by creating a regulatory framework and licencing system designed to encourage the increased use of heat networks.
Icons Date

A step in the right direction

Rob Hann and Juli Lau outline Sharpe Pritchard’s response to the Government’s Green Paper on reforming the ‘outdated’ public procurement regime.
Rob Hann

Life on the Edge!

This week sees the launch of Sharpe Edge – the home of Sharpe Pritchard on Local Government Lawyer. We have created Sharpe Edge for local authorities who are looking for ways to help their communities rebuild and regenerate following the devasting impact of the Covid-19 Pandemic.
Icons Court

Teckal and Beyond….

In this article Rob Hann, Sharpe Pritchard’s Head of Local Government, takes a look at what isn’t covered in the recent Green Paper on Transforming the UK’s Public Procurement rules, namely the exception contained in regulation 12 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015), commonly referred to as the Teckal exemption and asks whether Teckal is ‘fit for purpose’ in a post Brexit, post pandemic environment?
Icons Court

Jurisdiction Clauses & Enforcing Adjudication Decisions

The case of Motacus Constructions Ltd v Paolo Castelli Spa [2021] EWHC 356 (TCC) confirms adjudication’s status as an interim-binding measure and reinforces its importance as a dispute resolution forum in the construction industry.
Icons Date

Procurement in an Emergency – Requirements for Transparency

Public procurement has never had such a high profile as it has in recent months and most especially since the decision in Good Law Project and Others v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care ([2021] EWHC 346 (Admin)). However, in practice, has anything changed?
Icons Court

Disallowed Costs, Definitions and Default

The recent case of ABC Electrification Limited v Network Infrastructure Limited [2020] EWCA Civ 1645 saw legal practitioners jousting over the definition of a solitary word – namely, “default”. In this case regarding the scope of ‘Disallowed Costs’ in a common rail industry contract, the Court of Appeal issued a stark reminder to contractors that the meaning of individual words can be the difference between millions of pounds.
Icons Court

Automatic suspension and withdrawal of the decision to award

Colin Ricciardello examines a recent case where an authority sought to end an automatic contract making suspension by withdrawal of the decision to award the contract.
Icons House

Rooftop rows: What does an imposed Code agreement mean for site providers and operators?

Lillee Reid-Hunt and Christos Paphiti consider a recent Upper Tribunal decision that provides useful guidance on what site providers and telecoms operators can expect from the terms of an imposed Code agreement, especially in relation to upgrading and sharing of equipment and ballpark consideration and compensation figures.
Icons Date

Curing a breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty in possession proceedings

Christian Grierson and Simon Kiely examine the impact of a High Court judge’s ruling on whether a breach of the public sector equality duty (PSED) can be cured in possession proceedings.
Icons Court

Insolvency influx – the upsurge of CVAs

James Nelson examines the rise in Company Voluntary Arrangements, analyses their impact on commercial leases and explains how landlords, including public bodies and local authorities, can respond.
Icons Court

HMO licensing, the ‘fit and proper’ test and spent convictions

The Court of Appeal has provided clarity for the test of a ‘fit and proper’ licence holder for houses in multiple occupancy (HMOs), write Simon Kiely and Christian Grierson.
Icons House

Standing to bring a procurement challenge

A Technology & Construction Court judge recently ruled that a consortium bringing a procurement claim was not an economic operator under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 and would have had no chance of winning a hypothetical procurement. Colin Ricciardello analyses the judge's reasoning.
Icons Date

Local authority powers and traffic offences

Rob Hann, local government solicitor and author, explores concerns over proposals for new council powers to impose fines and penalties on motorists for some moving vehicle offences.
Icons Court

Who is in charge of the PFI Train?

Rob Hann, former Head of Legal at 4ps/Local Partnerships, gives his unique insight into the pending expiry of many PFI contracts in the local government sector and asks who will take responsibility for the next generation of local government assets and services, an issue that is becoming ever more urgent…..
Icons Court

Lockdown and local authority commercial development income

Rob Hann sets out the background to local authorities' investment in commercial property and examines why it has proved so controversial.
Icons House

Local government contracts and the ultra vires doctrine

In the light of the recent school facility management case invoving the Isle of Wight Council, Rob Hann takes a look at the weapons now available to local government to avoid the ‘horrors’ of ultra vires.
Icons Date

The End of PFI or… a new dawn for local authority infrastructure investment?

Rob Hann assesses new guidance from the National Audit Office for public bodies as PFI contracts start coming to an end, and looks at what the future holds for local authority investment.
Slide background