[2007] EWHC 2420 (TCC), 25 October 2007. Considers whether an adjudicator had jurisdiction to hear a dispute arising from an oral variation of the written construction contract and whether the adjudicator's decision had to be signed to be valid. Respondent (D) had engaged applicant (T) to carry out refurbishment and restoration work at his residence pursuant to a contract that incorporated the JCT Standard Form of Prime Cost Contract (1998 Edition with Amendments 1 and 2). A dispute arose as to the non-payment of monies and T referred the dispute to adjudication. The adjudicator held by an unsigned decision that D was liable to pay T approximately £1 000 000. Issues arose as to whether (i) there was an oral variation of the written construction contract that meant that the adjudicator had no jurisdiction; and (ii) the lack of signature on the adjudicator's decision meant it was unenforceable. T applied for summary judgment to enforce the adjudicator's decision. "Held": application granted. The adjudication process was not undermined by the fact that the terms of the original contract that contained the adjudication clause were orally varied. In addition, the contract simply called for the adjudicator to reach a decision and send it to the parties; there was no obligation for him to sign it.