Appointing an Adjudicator: Lessons from RNJM Ltd v Purpose Social Homes Ltd

The recent decision in RNJM Ltd v Purpose Social Homes Ltd highlights the importance of providing accurate information when appointing an adjudicator. This serves as a reminder that even minor missteps around potential conflicts of interest can undermine an adjudicator’s jurisdiction and render a decision unenforceable. It offers practical guidance for Referring Parties seeking to avoid costly and avoidable procedural pitfalls.

Key principles regarding the appointment of an adjudicator

In RNJM Ltd v Purpose Social Homes Ltd [2025] EWHC 2224 (TCC), the court refused to enforce an adjudicator’s decision as the Defendant had realistic prospects of demonstrating that:

• the Claimant had provided inaccurate information in relation to a conflict of interest; and
• the Adjudicator was therefore not validly appointed and did not have jurisdiction to determine the dispute.

Judge Kelly noted that:

• an adjudicator nomination body only requires to be informed if a potential adjudicator has a clear conflict of interest;
• if false or materially incomplete information regarding a conflict of interest is provided, the appointed adjudicator will not have jurisdiction to determine the dispute; and
• when challenging an adjudicator’s jurisdiction, it is not necessary to prove that the adjudicator nominating body was misled by the information provided.

As both (a) a failure to disclose relevant information and (b) the disclosure of inaccurate information may lead to an adjudicator’s decision being unenforceable, this can place a Referring Party who is aware of a potential conflict of interest in a difficult position.

Given that a significant amount of legal fees, expert fees, and management time could be wasted to obtain an ultimately unenforceable decision at adjudication, it is crucial that a Referring Party understands what constitutes a conflict of interest before commencing adjudication proceedings.

What is a conflict of interest?

In RNJM Ltd v Purpose Social Homes Ltd, the Claimant stated in the RICS nomination form that it had a “dispute over payment” with an adjudicator. Although the fee in question had been settled by the Defendant, the Claimant’s solicitor asserted he had a “genuine belief that the payment dispute…was a potential conflict”.

RICS guidance defines a conflict of interest as:

“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”.

Judge Kelly determined that there could be no justifiable doubt in relation to apparent bias because:

• the Claimant could not explain the alleged dispute (despite repeated requests from the Defendant); and
• any dispute regarding the fee was now only between the Claimant and the Defendant.

Rather than properly interrogating whether the situation constituted a conflict of interest, the Claimant flagged, what it said was, a potential conflict to the RICS, despite judicial guidance that only clear conflicts require to be disclosed, and against a backdrop of the adjudicator’s fees having already been paid by the other party.

When considering what information (if any) to provide to an adjudicator nominating body, a Referring Party should note that there are unlikely to be “justifiable doubts of bias or apparent bias” if:

• the adjudicator has prior knowledge of the parties, their appointed representatives, or any independent experts (unless the adjudicator has a personal or financial connection);
• the adjudicator has previously issued an adverse decision or decisions against one of the parties;
• the adjudicator has previously decided, or is in the process of deciding, another dispute between the parties; or
• the adjudicator was previously appointed to determine the dispute and resigned following a jurisdictional challenge.

Lessons from RNJM Ltd v Purpose Social Homes Ltd

Contacting the specified adjudicator nomination body is typically the quickest and most straightforward way to appoint an adjudicator. However, the strict restrictions regarding the information which can be provided (and the serious consequences of non-compliance) mean that the Referring Party has little control over who will be appointed.

Referring Parties should therefore always consider whether it would be advantageous to try to reach an agreement regarding the identity of the adjudicator. This may be attractive for one or both of the parties if they have concerns in relation to:

• previous decisions;
• the adjudicator’s likely fees;
• the Adjudicator’s likely approach to or conduct of the adjudication procedure; or
• any other reason which is not truly a conflict of interest.

However, as parties heading towards adjudication are often unable to agree on anything at all, a Referring Party may have no choice but to approach an adjudicator nominating body and to carefully consider what information to provide or risk there being an unenforceable decision of inaccurate or incorrect information is included.

If you require tailored advice in relation to adjudication proceedings or would like to discuss any of the points raised in this article, please contact Fraser Hopkins, Kate Ross, or your usual Beale & Co contact.