A boutique law firm of exceptional quality and talent where clients' and lawyers' interests are aligned by collaboration and innovation
The Technology and Construction Court has once again reaffirmed the importance of transparency and accuracy in the adjudicator nomination process. In RNJM Ltd v Purpose Social Homes Ltd [2025] EWHC 2224 (TCC), the Court refused to enforce an adjudicator’s award on the basis that the referring party may have made a false or misleading statement regarding conflicts of interest in the nominating process. This judgment underlines the continuing significance of procedural integrity in construction adjudication.
Background
The dispute arose out of a series of adjudications between RNJM Ltd and Purpose Social Homes Ltd (PSHL). In earlier adjudications, RNJM was ordered to pay adjudicator’s fees but failed to do so.
In a subsequent adjudication, RNJM sought the appointment of a new adjudicator. In its application to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), RNJM asserted that there was a conflict of interest with a previously appointed adjudicator, citing a 'dispute over payment'. Despite PSHL challenging the accuracy of this statement, RICS appointed a different adjudicator, who ultimately awarded RNJM approximately £133,000.
The Court’s decision
RNJM applied to the TCC for summary enforcement of the award. PSHL resisted enforcement, contending that the conflict statement submitted to RICS was false or recklessly made and therefore invalidated the appointment process.
The Court held that RNJM had failed to provide any substantive evidence to support its conflict assertion. It had merely relied on a bare assertion of a 'dispute over payment', without explaining the nature of the alleged dispute or how it gave rise to any conflict of interest.
The Court emphasised that false or misleading statements in nomination forms can invalidate an adjudicator’s appointment, following the authority of Eurocom Ltd v Siemens Plc [2014] EWHC 3710 (TCC). This is indeed made clear on the RICS application form. As such, the decision of the adjudicator was not enforced by the TCC.
Key principles
The decision highlights several important points:
Practical implications
For parties involved in adjudication, the case is a clear reminder to exercise caution when completing nomination forms. Any assertion of conflict of interest should be supported by documentary evidence and a reasoned explanation. Reckless or unsubstantiated allegations carry significant risk.
Equally, for respondents, this decision demonstrates that challenges to enforcement can succeed where there is credible evidence that the nomination process was undermined. The courts remain vigilant in upholding the integrity of adjudication as a statutory dispute resolution mechanism.
Conclusion
RNJM Ltd v Purpose Social Homes Ltd serves as a warning against casual or tactical use of conflict allegations in the nomination process. Procedural integrity lies at the heart of adjudication, and parties who fail to approach the process with honesty and precision risk undermining the enforceability of any award obtained. The decision reinforces the principle that jurisdictional objections, if well‑founded, will defeat enforcement even where an adjudicator has made a clear monetary award.
How I can help
As a construction lawyer, I act for contractors, employers and consultants to ensure that disputes are handled strategically from the outset. This includes advising on the adjudication process, drafting and responding to nomination forms, and safeguarding the enforceability of awards. If you are facing a potential adjudication, or need to enforce (or challenge) an award, I can provide the practical and legal expertise to protect your position and maximise your prospects of success.
Please contact Brandon to discuss any of the above further brandonsilver@bexleybeaumont.com | 07834 173528
