TCC 19 July 2001. The claimant (B) commenced court proceedings against the defendant works contractor (S&R) and the management contractor (TWML) alleging that an arbitrator had no jurisdiction in a dispute regarding the valuation of works by the architect in certificates he had issued under a JCT Works Contract/2 cl 4.27. "Held": the arbitrator was right to agree to Belgravia's request for an application regarding his jurisdiction under the Arbitration Act 1996; disputes relating to the value of the works contract, and consequently the prime cost under the management contract B had entered into with TWML, should normally be referred to the same arbitrator under cl 9.2 of both contracts; only TWML could give notice of arbitration to B under cl 4.27; cl 4.27 did not imply that TWML could refuse S&R to use its name; cl 4.27 obliged TWML to co-operate and provide assistance to S&R to enable the arbitration to be carried out effectively; cl 4.27 did not authorise S&R to enforce the award; the arbitrator could not make orders directly against S&R under cl 4.27; the reference to cl 1.11 gave TWML indemnity against costs and security to back up any liabilities of S&R; S&R needed to inform TWML of its intentions and satisfy TWML's reasonable requirements regarding indemnity and security before starting proceedings in TWML's name; S&R could commence arbitration proceedings only in TWML's name; S&R did not need TWML's consent to start proceedings. Consequently the arbitrator was found not to have jurisdiction and proceeding were ordered to be stayed. Full copy of judgment available at: http://porch.ccta.gov.uk/courtser/judgements.nsf/Search/4D7B3A696F20153F80256A9200541626?OpenDocument