If the adjudicator makes a mistake in law or fact on an issue within his jurisdiction, the decision binds until decided in litigation or arbitration. Bouygues decided to go to the three-man Court of Appeal. It was decided on 31 July. But they said something very interesting about enforcing an adjudicator's decision when one of the parties becomes bankrupt or enters into liquidation. Jack is not interested solely in the contract between Bouygues and Dahl-Jensen, it is interested in all the people who might be injured by the enterprise that has gone, or is going, bust.
Insolvency law attempts to share out the remaining assets as fairly and equally as possible.
That's all very interesting, but Bouygues didn't have a piece of paper from an adjudicator saying Dahl-Jensen owed it money. So, on the face of it, nothing was available to set off against the 207 000. This was explained in a 1996 House of Lords case, Stein vs Blake . The position seems to be that, when a company enters into liquidation, the liquidator can claim moneys due to the company, but liabilities must be set against that cash. And it is immaterial whether the debt or liability is present or future, whether it is certain or contingent, whether it can be ascertained or calculated.