[39] The High court agreed with the adjudicator and held that ss 5 and 6 of CIPAA are determinative of jurisdiction, and that the adjudicator's jurisdiction did not extend to matters in the adjudication claims and the adjudication response or even the adjudication reply found in ss 9 to 11 of CIPAA. (See para 60 of the High court judgment).

[40] The High court justified its conclusion by reasoning out that the adjudication pleadings under ss 9 to 11 of CIPAA are merely "manifestations" of the matters in ss 5 and 6 of CIPAA. In the words of the High court:

the whole adjudication process that takes place after that from the appointment of the Adjudicator to the filing of the Adjudication Claim, the Adjudication Response and the Adjudication Reply are substantially formal manifestations of the dispute containing greater details of the claim, response or reply, as the case may be of the first Payment Claim and Payment Response.

The court of Appeal agreed fully with the High court.

[41] With respect to the above reasoning of the High court, it is untenable to reduce the adjudication pleadings in ss 9 to 11 of CIPAA to mere "formal manifestations" of the dispute. If it were so, and speed is