Summary judgment not awarded in favour of the Claimant party due to false statement on RICS nomination form

In RNJM Limited v Purpose Social Homes Limited [2025] EWHC 2224, HHJ Kelly sitting in the Technology and Construction Court considered an application for summary judgment to enforce an Adjudicator’s decision. The Responding Party to the adjudication sought to resist enforcement on the grounds that the Adjudicator had been incorrectly appointed and so did not have jurisdiction to make the award. This was based on an alleged false statement made by the Referring Party regarding a conflict of interest on this RICS nomination form, which ruled out an identified person from being nominated.

Background
The dispute between RNJM Limited (Claimant) and Purpose Social Homes Limited (Defendant) arose out of a construction contract entered into in November 2022. The contract (a JCT Minor Works Building Contract 2016) concerned the construction of a three-storey block of six apartments.

Pursuant to the JCT contract, clause 7.2 allowed either party to refer a dispute to adjudication, which resulted in the Claimant commencing five adjudications. A brief background to the adjudications is set out below as relevant to the issue determined by the TCC.

The fifth adjudication resulted in an award to the Claimant of £132,884.72, which was not paid by the Defendant and thus enforcement proceedings were commenced.

Previous adjudications
In the first adjudication, both parties were asked by the appointed Adjudicator to provide security for the Adjudicator’s fees and expenses. The Defendant provided the security as to time of serving their Response. However, the Claimant did not provide security and following a further request from the Adjudicator which the Claimant did not respond to, the Adjudicator resigned before issuing a Decision.

The Claimant referred the same dispute to a second adjudication, requesting that the RICS nominate an Adjudicator who would not seek money on account or security for fees under their terms. The RICS nominated Adjudicator provided in his terms that he would determine the apportionment of his fees and expenses as part of any Decision, and both parties would be joint and severally liable for his fees and expenses until payment as directed. There was no obligation to make a security payment.

In the second adjudication the Adjudicator found in favour of the Claimant and ordered the Defendant to pay his fees and expenses, which they did.

In the third and fourth adjudications, the Adjudicator found in favour of the Defendant, directing the Claimant to pay his fees and expenses. Crucially, there were no suggestions of any conflict of interest raised by the Claimant at this stage based on the Decisions made and the directions as to payment of the Adjudicator’s fees and expenses.

The Claimant did not pay the fees and expenses awarded against them in the third and fourth adjudications. The Adjudicator threatened legal proceedings to recover their fees, resulting in the Defendant paying the fees and expenses under the joint and severally liable principal, to then seek reimbursement by the Claimant. The Defendant requested clarity from the Claimant as to why they had not paid their share of fees as instructed, but no response was received.

A further dispute arose. In the application to the RICS for the fifth adjudication, the Claimant then stated there was a conflict of interest involving the Adjudicator who had determined adjudication 2 to 4, concerning a “dispute over payment with [the] Referring Party” with no further supporting evidence.

The Defendant’s solicitors contested this, setting out its position to the RICS and the Claimant that there could be no conflict; the Claimant had simply chosen not to pay the Adjudicator’s fees despite being directed to do so.

The Claimant provided no response or clarity as to why there was an alleged conflict of interest, and a different Adjudicator was appointed by the RICS for the fifth adjudication. The Adjudicator found in favour of the Claimant but the Defendant did not pay the award and, on the commencement of enforcement proceedings by the Claimant, resisted enforcement on the basis of jurisdiction, asserting that the Claimant had made a false or reckless statement that the previous Adjudicator had a conflict of interest such that the appointment of a different Adjudicator was a nullity.

The issues
The parties agreed that the main issue for determination was whether the Defendant had a real prospect of successfully arguing that the Claimant either deliberately or recklessly made a false statement in the process of applying to the RICS for the appointment of an Adjudicator for the fifth adjudication.

In order to consider this issue, the Court considered the following in the context of the application for summary judgment:

1. What was the information provided by the Claimant to the RICS asserting that there was a dispute between the Claimant and the Adjudicator for adjudications two to four?
2. Was the information provided false or did the facts relied upon establish a dispute between the Claimant and the Adjudicator?
3. Was the false information given either deliberately or recklessly as to its truth?

Judgment
HHJ Kelly determined the evidence provided by the Claimant was “wholly inadequate to establish the nature of and reason for asserting that there was an alleged dispute.” The judgment concluded by stating it remained unanswered as to why the Claimant identified a potential but unjustified conflict on the RICS nomination form, why the Claimant asserted that any dispute as to payment of fees and expenses awarded amounted to a conflict of interest with the Adjudicator and on what basis the Claimant asserted an “honest” belief that it had a conflict of interest with the Adjudicator.

Therefore, the Claimant’s application for summary judgment was refused on the basis that the Defendant had showed a realistic prospect that the Adjudicator for the fifth adjudication lacked jurisdiction on the basis that the Claimant made a false statement about a conflict of interest on the adjudication referral form. Importantly, the Defendant did not have to prove that the RICS was misled by the statement of the alleged conflict. This judgment follows the principles established in Eurocom v Siemens.

Key deduction
The judgment in this case highlights the importance of correctly following the adjudication process from the outset, starting with the submission of accurate information in the RICS forms. Failure to do so may result in the loss of award of summary judgment, as exemplified in this case.

To avoid similar occurrences, it is paramount for those seeking to have an Adjudicator nominated to consider whether there is any clear evidence of a potential or actual conflict of interest that could justify any attempt to restrict or prevent the nomination of a particular Adjudicator. This would assist in showing that there was an honest belief that circumstances of a conflict existed.

If you have any questions in relation to this case or require support in any adjudication, please contact James Vernon. Please continue to keep your eyes peeled for future content in respect of adjudication and adjudication enforcement too.