Did a dispute arise ‘under’ a construction contract?

In J Murphy & Sons Ltd v W Maher and Sons Ltd [2016] EWHC 1148 (TCC) Sir Robert Akenhead held that the claimant was not entitled to a declaration that an adjudicator had no jurisdiction because the dispute arose ‘under’ a settlement agreement (which did not contain an adjudication clause) and not ‘under’ the original sub-sub-contract between the parties (which did contain an adjudication clause). Drawing on an analogy with arbitration clauses, where the courts have adopted a broad interpretation of words such as ‘under’, he held that a dispute as to whether all or some of the alleged entitlements which one contracting party has against the other has been settled in a binding way arises ‘under’ the original contract so that the adjudicator has jurisdiction to decide the dispute provided that he has jurisdiction under that original contract. It is, however, important to note that Sir Robert Akenhead reached this conclusion as a matter of interpretation, and not by applying a rule of law, so that in all cases it is necessary to pay careful attention to the drafting of both the original contract and any settlement agreement.