The same or substantially the same dispute?

In Hitachi Zosen Inova AG v John Sisk & Son Ltd [2019] EWHC 495 (TCC), Stuart-Smith J decided that even if an earlier adjudication had concluded that a variation was valid and its value was ‘£nil’ for the purposes of a payment application (due to lack of evidence), the decision made in a subsequent adjudication relating to the actual value of that variation would still be enforced.

This ruling might encourage referring parties dissatisfied with some aspect of an adjudicator’s decision to refer issues to a second adjudicator if it is arguable that the first adjudicator left some part of the claim undecided or new evidence for the referring party’s position becomes available.

It also gives comfort to adjudicating parties to refer a dispute again if what was actually decided by the first adjudicator was unrelated to the dispute referred.

James Vernon and Charlotte Gooch discuss the case in more detail here.