When is a dispute the same or substantially the same?

In Hitachi Zosen Inova AG v John Sisk & Son Ltd [2019] EWHC 495 (TCC) Stuart-Smith J rejected a submission that a dispute which had been referred to adjudication was the same or substantially the same as a dispute between the parties which had previously been referred to adjudication. In so concluding he rejected the proposition that there is a hard-edged rule that disputes should be regarded as being the same or substantially the same if there is an overlap of evidence between the two cases. The focus of the court should, in all adjudication cases, be on the matter decided by the adjudicator in the first dispute, not on the matters referred to him or her or the submissions made by the parties in that adjudication. It is only where the dispute referred to adjudication is one that was the same or substantially the same as one previously decided by an adjudicator that the adjudicator in the later adjudication will lack jurisdiction.