A misleading conflict of interest statement on an adjudicator nomination form led the court to void the appointment and dismiss enforcement in RNJM Ltd v Purpose Social Homes Ltd [2025], reaffirming that procedural honesty is essential to adjudication jurisdiction.
• A misleading “conflict of interest” statement on an adjudicator nomination form invalidated the adjudicator’s appointment.
• The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) held that a false or reckless statement at the nomination stage undermines jurisdiction.
• The referring party’s enforcement application was dismissed.
• The decision reinforces Eurocom v Siemens - candour and accuracy are essential in adjudicator nominations.
• Key message: accuracy at the appointment stage is not a formality; it is fundamental to the integrity of adjudication.
RNJM Ltd v Purpose Social Homes Ltd concerned a payment dispute under a JCT Minor Works Building Contract 2016 for a residential development in Harrogate. The case arose from the fifth adjudication between the same parties. In earlier adjudications, RNJM had been directed to pay adjudicators’ fees — and failed to do so. After one of those adjudicators threatened recovery proceedings, the responding party, Purpose Social Homes Ltd ('Purpose'), paid the fees itself.
When the fifth dispute arose, RNJM applied to the RICS for the nomination of a new adjudicator. On the RICS form, RNJM’s representative stated that there was a “conflict of interest” with the previous adjudicator because there was a “dispute over payment with the Referring Party.” That single line - unsupported by any detail or evidence - became decisive.
RICS appointed a different adjudicator, who awarded RNJM £132,884.72. RNJM sought to enforce that award in the TCC. Purpose resisted enforcement, arguing that the adjudicator’s appointment was invalid because the “conflict” statement was false and misleading.
The TCC (Her Honour Judge Kelly) was asked to decide whether RNJM’s statement to the RICS amounted to a deliberate or reckless misrepresentation, thereby invalidating the adjudicator’s appointment. The key questions were:
1. Was the statement that there was a “dispute” between RNJM and the previous adjudicator true?
2. If not, was the misstatement made knowingly or recklessly?
3. Did that misstatement render the appointment process invalid under Eurocom Ltd v Siemens Plc [2014] EWHC 3710 (TCC)?
1. There was no “dispute” - only an unpaid invoice
The Court found that RNJM had never challenged the adjudicator’s entitlement to fees, nor argued about the amount or liability. It had simply not paid. Once Purpose discharged the outstanding sums, the issue was resolved. Judge Kelly described the “conflict” claim as unsupported and unexplained, noting that repeated requests by Purpose for clarification were ignored.
2. The RICS was misled
By stating that there was a “dispute over payment,” RNJM created a misleading impression that there was a genuine disagreement between itself and the former adjudicator. There was none. The Court found that this statement was false and made recklessly, satisfying the test established in Eurocom v Siemens.
3. The appointment was void for lack of jurisdiction
Because the nomination was procured by a misleading statement, the adjudicator’s appointment was a nullity, and the decision lacked jurisdiction. As a result, RNJM’s application for summary judgment to enforce the award was dismissed.
4. The Court declined to consider further issues
Having found that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction, the Court did not need to address alternative arguments, including an implied duty of honesty or a stay of execution on insolvency grounds.
The judgment reaffirmed several important principles governing adjudication appointments:
• Accuracy is paramount - The nomination process relies on the accuracy and completeness of the referring party’s disclosure.
• False or misleading statements void the appointment - Even if made recklessly, such statements undermine jurisdiction.
• Conflict of interest requires substance - Apparent bias must have an objective foundation; dissatisfaction with prior decisions does not amount to conflict.
• Duty of candor - Although adjudication is contractual, parties must act with good faith and transparency when engaging with adjudicator nominating bodies (ANBs).
1. “Conflict” is not a tactical tool - Parties must distinguish between genuine conflicts and mere preferences.
2. Misstatements have serious consequences - Any inaccurate or incomplete disclosure on an ANB form risks invalidating the entire adjudication.
3. Transparency matters - If there is a legitimate concern about bias, it should be clearly set out, supported by evidence, and shared with the other party.
4. Repeat adjudications demand care - Where parties have a history of multiple adjudications, emotions can run high. However, procedural integrity must be maintained.
RNJM Ltd v Purpose Social Homes Ltd serves as a cautionary reminder that procedural accuracy is not administrative - it is jurisdictional. A single sentence on a nomination form invalidated an entire adjudication. For those involved in repeat disputes, this case reinforces that honesty and precision at the outset are vital. The Court’s message is clear: adjudication is built on candour. Once that foundation is compromised, enforcement will not follow.
Holmes & Hills LLP advises contractors, developers, and employers on adjudication, enforcement, and dispute resolution under the Construction Act. For expert advice on adjudication strategy or enforcement challenges, contact our Construction Law Team.
Disclaimer
The content of this article is provided for general information only. It does not constitute legal or other professional advice. The information given in this article is correct at the date of publication.
A Mackman Group collaboration - market research by Mackman Research | website design by Mackman
