A majority of the respondents agreed with this with some of the following comments raised: 1. The power to disregard submissions and evidence should extend to submissions and evidence from the responding party too, because of fairness and avoiding a dispute becoming too complex to decide fairly resulting in the adjudicator resigning. 2. The power to disregard submissions and evidence could lead to a “case within a case” generating arguments and costs that would be best avoided with a simpler model being to limit parties to (in effect) documents and evidence exchanged before the adjudication commencement. 3. The inconsistent application of this power will make the claimants prepare every payment claim like an adjudication submission. The power to disregard submissions and evidence from the responding party does not necessarily provide fairness to the proceedings. Primarily, the reason for limiting submissions and evidence from the claiming party is because it has unrestricted time to prepare a payment claim and it ought to have included every document required to support its case. The responding party in contrast only has limited time to prepare a payment schedule/response4 under the security of payment legislation in different jurisdictions. The following discusses the enforcement of recent adjudication decisions in four jurisdictions. Singapore Bintai Kinclenko Ptd Ltd v Samsung C&T Corporation (2018) SGCA 39 A dispute arose out of a construction contract for construction works about additions and alterations to Suntec City’s convention centre and retail podium. Bintai and Samsung exchanged payment claim and payment response. Despite the total dispute amount that arose between the parties, Bintai served a notice of intention to apply for adjudication only for one item, namely the release of the first half of the retention monies. In the Adjudication Application there were also three issues in dispute: (a) the retention monies; (b) some backcharges for scaffolding works; and (c) some variation works certified and paid in earlier payment responses. In arriving at the adjudicator’s decision, he considered and gave his findings in respect of the release of the first half of the retention monies but not the two issues on backcharges and variation works. In the High Court, the judge had set aside the