Felicity Dynes successful in RNJM Limited v Purpose Social Homes Limited [2025] EWHC 2224 (TCC)

Felicity Dynes has been successful in defending an application for summary enforcement of an adjudicator’s award on the grounds that an alleged fraudulent misrepresentation to the adjudicator nominating body (“ANB”) vitiated the appointment.

In the first reported instance of the principle established in Eurocom v Siemens [2014] EWHC 3710 (TCC) being applied successfully since that decision, Felicity Dynes successfully argued against the summary enforcement of an adjudicator’s award on the basis of an alleged fraudulent misrepresentation on the application form to the ANB.

There had been five adjudications between the Parties, all commenced by the Claimant. The first adjudicator resigned after a failure by the Claimant to provide the requested security for costs. In the second, third and fourth adjudications a second adjudicator was appointed. The Claimant lost the third and fourth adjudications and was ordered by that adjudicator to make payment of his fees immediately.

The Claimant had, unknown to the Defendant, failed to make such payment and the adjudicator subsequently repeated his request for payment, copying both parties and noting the joint and several liability of the parties. No response or payment still having been made by the Claimant, the adjudicator threatened legal proceedings against both parties. The Defendant subsequently made payment of those fees.

Around the same time, the Claimant Referring Party gave a further (fifth) notice of its intention to commence adjudication. It then applied to the RICS for an adjudicator. The Claimant had stated on its application to the RICS that the adjudicator who had acted in the three prior adjudications between the parties had a ‘conflict of interest’. No detail was given in respect of the “Reason” for the alleged conflict, simply the statement: “Dispute over payment with Referring Party”.

The Defendant Responding Party wrote to the RICS denying that there was any such conflict and inviting the Claimant to explain itself. No explanation was given. The RICS appointed a different adjudicator.

The Defendant repeated its request to the Claimant on a number of occasions for an explanation of the basis on which it was alleged that there was a conflict. No attempt was made by the Claimant to explain the position until reply witness statements were served shortly before the hearing of the Claimant’s application.

The Judge accepted that there was significant overlap and repetition as between the witness statements served on behalf of the Claimant and no proper explanation of the alleged dispute with the Adjudicator or the basis for the Claimant’s witnesses’ alleged “honest belief” in the truth of the statement. As a result the Judge, HHJ Kelly concluded that she had “no hesitation” in dismissing the Claimant’s application. The Defendant had a reasonable prospect of successfully defending the claim, such that the test for summary judgment was not met.

The case serves as a useful reminder that parties must act openly and honestly in their applications for nomination of an adjudicator, and an attempt to avoid the same adjudicator being appointed in serial adjudications in reliance on a party’s own failure to pay fees due is unlikely to result in an enforceable decision.

Felicity Dynes was instructed by Freeths LLP.

Read the full judgment here.