Conflict: false nomination statements may block adjudication enforcement

The TCC ruling in RNJM Ltd v Purpose Social Homes Ltd [2025] shows that adjudication enforcement may falter when jurisdiction is unclear, especially if nomination processes are incorrectly handled or misrepresented.

Most people will be familiar with the principle that adjudication decisions are binding unless and until finally determined by legal proceedings.

However, the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) decision in RNJM Ltd v Purpose Social Homes Ltd [2025] EWHC 2224 (TCC) serves as a sharp reminder that adjudication enforcement is not guaranteed where jurisdiction is in doubt – particularly when nomination procedures are mishandled or misrepresented.

Background

Over the course of 2024, RNJM commenced five adjudications against Purpose.  The nominating body (RICS) appointed the same adjudicator, Mr Bunker, in respect of the second, third and fourth adjudications. The third and fourth adjudications were intended to be “smash and grab” adjudications and in both Mr Bunker found against RNJM and in favour of Purpose, directing that RNJM pay his fees, which RNJM subsequently failed to pay.

Mr Bunker accordingly wrote to both Parties reminding them that they were jointly and severally liable for his fees and threatened legal proceedings. Purpose paid Mr Bunker’s fees and then wrote to RNJM asking why it had failed to do so. A response from RNJM was not received.

Adjudicator Nomination

Instead, RNJM then commenced a fifth adjudication against Purpose. In its nomination form to RICS it said that Mr Bunker should not be appointed as there was a conflict of interest with him due to a “dispute over payment”. No further details or evidence in regard to the alleged dispute with Mr Bunker were provided.

The RICS guidance on this point noted:

“Conflict of interest: An involvement between the dispute resolver and one of the parties, one of the parties and representatives or the subject matter of the dispute, or any other circumstances that raises justifiable doubts of bias or apparent bias.”

Purpose responded to the nomination, stating that there was not a conflict or any dispute concerning Mr Bunker’s fees and the position was simply that RNJM had not paid the adjudicator’s fees when directed to do so. RNJM did not respond or provide any explanation of the alleged conflict, and it followed that RICS appointed a different adjudicator, Mr Wood, who in the fifth adjudication found in favour of RNJM.

Enforcement Proceedings 

RNJM then sought to enforce the decision of Mr Wood in the sum of £132,884.72.

In defending the enforcement proceedings, Purpose relied on the principles in the case of Eurocom v Siemens [2014] EWHC 3710 stating that there:

“is a strong prima facie case that [RNJM] deliberately or recklessly made a false statement in the process of applying to the Adjudicator Nominating Body in order to seek an advantage, meaning that the application is invalid and the appointment a nullity, such that the Adjudicator did not have jurisdiction.”

Issue to be determined

The Parties agreed that the issue to be determined before Her Honour Judge Kelly was whether Purpose had a real prospect of successfully arguing that RNJM either deliberately or recklessly made a false statement when applying to the RICS for the appointment of an adjudicator for the fifth adjudication.

RNJM sought to argue that it had a genuine belief that the payment dispute over Mr Bunker’s fees was a potential conflict and it was reasonable for it to conclude that a fair-minded observer would conclude that Mr Bunker would be biased.

RNJM asserted that it was concerned that the steps taken by Mr Bunker to pursue payment of his fees constituted a risk that there would be a perception of apparent bias against them and so it was reasonable for it to set out those concerns in the nomination form.

In response, Purpose focused on the inadequacy of RNJM’s evidence, asserting that RNJM had never adequately explained why it considered that there was a dispute with Mr Bunker, nor had it evidenced what the dispute was. It was noted that Purpose had repeatedly asked RNJM to identify the dispute, but RNJM never responded and its requests for information were ignored.

Judgment

HHJ Kelly asked the question of whether the information provided by RNJM to RICS was false. In answering this question, consideration was given to RNJM’s evidence and HHJ Kelly determined:

i. RNJM’s referral form provided no adequate explanation as to why it asserted that there was a dispute. It only gave a bare assertion that there was a dispute over payment between it and Mr Bunker;

ii. there was no evidence or assertion by RNJM that it disagreed with or argued with Mr Bunker about his fees; it simply did not pay them; 

iii. Mr Bunker pursued both parties for payment of his fees and once his fees had been paid, Mr Bunker had no fee dispute with either party. Since Purpose had already paid the adjudicator’s fees, the only possible dispute over them was between RNJM and Purpose; and

iv. the evidence provided by RNJM was wholly inadequate to establish the nature or basis for asserting that there was an alleged dispute. The numerous questions raised by Purpose were legitimate. The fact that RNJM chose not to answer those questions or provide any evidence about the nature of the dispute was “telling” and those questions remained unresolved.

On this basis, HHJ Kelly dismissed RNJM’s application for summary judgement and held that Purpose had a realistic prospect of successfully arguing that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction on the basis that RNJM had made a false statement about a conflict of interest on the adjudication referral form.

Comment

Adjudication remains a robust process to resolve disputes, but the decision serves as a reminder of the importance of commencing the adjudication process correctly and with extreme care. Unsubstantiated allegations carry significant risk, and any misrepresentations can render an otherwise favourable adjudication decision null and void.

The case also demonstrates that any attempt to exclude adjudicators on false grounds could impact the appointed adjudicator’s jurisdiction. We saw in this case that the courts are willing to scrutinise jurisdictional issues, even at the enforcement stage, and will refuse summary judgment if the integrity of the process is in question.