There is no definition of the word ‘dispute’ in the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA) but implementation of this legislation depends upon a clear understanding of when a dispute arises. 

It is possible to challenge the jurisdiction of an adjudicator on the basis that a dispute has not yet come into existence.  It is crucial therefore to discern whether or not a claim falls within the accepted parameters of what constitutes a dispute.

This paper examines all the relevant case law that has a bearing on the meaning of the word dispute as it applies to construction adjudication under the HGCRA. 

In each case the essential features are analysed, compared and summarised. From the outset, judges relied heavily on pre-existing case law in arbitration and variously applied what became known as a ‘wide’ and a ‘narrow’ definition of the word ‘dispute’, developing a dichotomy of approach in the Technology and Construction Court. 

The summary findings from each of the adjudication cases are then compared with recent Court of Appeal arbitration cases that also specifically mention in obiter the application of ‘dispute’ to adjudication.

The result is a proposed definition of ‘dispute’ based upon case law and judicial comment.