[2005] EWHC 2943 TCC. A was employed as a sub-contractor by M under a construction contract. Following a dispute, M issued both notice of intention to determine the sub-contract, and written confirmation of a verbal instruction to leave the site, purportedly signed by B on M's behalf. A sent a draft assessment of account to M containing a claim for interest and overheads which was not supported by detailed information, which was later referred to adjudication. B then sought to retract an affidavit in which he had sworn that he had not in fact signed the written confirmation. Both parties made submissions on how this evidence should be treated, but the timetable of the adjudication was not adjusted to allow B to give oral evidence. The adjudicator made an award in A's favour, without receiving evidence of retraction. When M did not pay, A issued proceedings. M argued that because the assessed figures were either an interim payment or equivalent to a draft final account, time for payment of which had not lapsed, there was no dispute between the parties; in addition the adjudicator should not have made his decision without giving the parties an opportunity to adduce the retraction evidence, or without actually hearing B's evidence. "Held" (1) Even if a contract prescribed a time when payment fell due, that was not necessarily conclusive as to whether a dispute had arisen; in this case, it was entitlement to payment that was being denied, and whatever the supporting evidence adduced by A in relation to the claim for overheads and interests, it was clear that M would not entertain the claim. (2) Criticisms of how the adjudicator had dealt with B were not matters for the court, even though he had not followed a strict litigation approach; the manner in which he should treat B's evidence had been the subject of submissions by both parties, and M had failed to establish a breach of natural justice.