[2005] EWCA Civ 291,17 March 2005. Discusses a dispute regarding an arbitrator's ruling under clause 66 of the ICE conditions of contract. Amec (A) had appealed against a decision upholding an arbitrator's ruling that the respondent secretary of state (S) had given a valid notice of arbitration under the contract which the parties had entered into. A had been engaged by the secretary of state to carry out major renovation works to a viaduct under ICE conditions of contract but 6 months before the six year limitation period expired, structural deficiencies in the viaduct became apparent. The faults were found to be due to defective roller bearing designed by A and adopted by the engineers under the contract, Pell Frischmann (P). P decided that A had supplied roller bearings not in accordance with the contract and consequently S took A to arbitration. A argued that no dispute had existed that was capable of being referred to P under clause 66, so that there was no valid engineer's decision and nothing capable of being referred to arbitration and that P's decision was unfair. "Held": clause 66 referred to a dispute or difference and could not be construed rigidly in law, therefore allowing S to start timely arbitration proceedings. With regards to fairness, an engineer, giving a decision under clause 66, had to act independently and honestly but he did not have to comply with the rules of natural justice.