[2005] EWCA Civ 1358, 16 November 2005. D sought permission to appeal against a decision ([2005] EWHC 778 (TTC), L129765) giving summary judgment for C enforcing an adjudicator's decision, on the grounds that the decision had been outside his jurisdiction, was reached against the rules of natural justice and without adequate reasons being given, and that he had no jurisdiction to award interest on the sum he found to be due. "Held":Permission to appeal was rejected on all grounds other than that of interest. The Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 and Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998 Schedule 1required the courts to enforce an adjudicator's decision unless it was clear that he had not decided the question referred to him, or that he had gone about his task in a manifestly unfair manner. The Scheme was not designed to find definitive answers to complex questions, and the need to find a right answer was subordinate to the need for quickness. An unsuccessful party could take legal or arbitration proceedings, if necessary, to establish the correct position. Challenging the adjudicator's decision on the grounds that he had exceeded his jurisdiction or breached the rules of natural justice was likely to lead to a waste of time and expense. If an adjudicator refused to consider evidence that he deemed irrelevant, that was neither a breach of the rules of natural justice nor a failure to consider relevant material. An adjudicator did not have a freestanding power to award interest under the Scheme. He could decide questions of interest only they were matters in dispute that had been properly referred to him, or if the parties had agreed they were to be within the scope of the adjudication, or were matters which the adjudicator considered to be connected with the dispute. In this case, the parties had agreed that interest payable on outstanding moneys was to be within the scope of the adjudication. The appeal was dismissed.