1. Challenging an adjudicator’s decision on the grounds of natural justice

Clegg Food Projects Ltd v Prestige Car Direct Properties Ltd [2025] EWHC 2173 (TCC)

Factual Background

Clegg (Main Contractor) was engaged by Prestige (Employer) under an amended JCT Design and Build Contract for the construction of a leisure and retail centre. Following practical completion, a dispute arose between the parties concerning the valuation of Payment Application 37. The dispute related to eight variations, entitlement to extensions of time, and claims for prolongation costs.

Clegg referred the matter to adjudication, seeking several declarations, including that the gross valuation of Payment Application 37 was £23,502,636.65 plus VAT, or alternatively, “such other sum as the adjudicator may decide.”

In his decision the adjudicator calculated the value of Payment Application 37 using a rate which the adjudicator considered to be “fair and reasonable”. This rate had not been argued by either party.

The adjudicator’s decision directed that Prestige pay £541,880.12 plus VAT and interest to Clegg, and the adjudicator’s fees.

Prestige failed to pay and Clegg referred this to the court to obtain summary judgment.

Prestige argued that the adjudicator had breached the rules of natural justice by applying his own “fair and reasonable rate” instead of using either of the rates requested by each party. Prestige also argued that the adjudicator had provided insufficient reasons for his decision, claiming that the decision lacked clarity and explanation for the adopted valuation methodology.

Judgment

The Judge granted summary judgment and rejected Prestige’s arguments.

No breach of natural justice:

The Judge held that the adjudicator was entitled to reach his own valuation, especially since both parties had invited an overall valuation or “such other sum as the adjudicator may decide.” The adjudicator wasn’t required to consult the parties on every aspect of his reasoning, especially when his valuation fell within the range of figures submitted and was even more favourable to Prestige than had been requested. The Judge found that the adjudicator had fairly considered the evidence and submissions provided, and hadn’t relied upon any material outside the scope of the parties’ instructions.

Even if there had been a breach of natural justice, the Judge said that Prestige must establish that any breach was both material and of considerable importance. Given that Prestige accepted that the adjudicator could have simply used the rate proposed by Clegg (which would have meant Prestige being directed to pay a higher sum to Clegg), Prestige couldn’t establish that it had suffered substantial injustice

Reasoning was adequate:

The adjudicator’s 88-page decision provided sufficient detail and demonstrated engagement with the parties’ evidence. While not exhaustive, the reasoning met the required standard, and even if it had not been, Prestige failed to show it suffered any substantial prejudice as a result. The adjudicator wasn’t required to break down every item and sub-item, particularly in a dispute involving a global valuation.

Takeaway points

This judgment reinforces the principle that adjudicators have broad discretion in valuation disputes and that enforcement will not be denied lightly on grounds of procedural unfairness or brevity in reasoning.

As is common in adjudication, where parties invite the adjudicator to determine a sum “as they see fit,” there is a real possibility that the adjudicator will apply their own valuation methodology including independent rates, especially when the dispute concerns overall value.

2. Misrepresentation of conflicts of interest in an adjudicator nomination form can be fatal to an adjudication

RNJM Limited v Purpose Social Homes Limited [2025] EWHC 2224 (TCC)

Factual Background

This case concerned the fifth adjudication between RNJM and Purpose Social Homes Limited (“PSHL“). The second, third and fourth adjudications had all been overseen by the same adjudicator (“Adjudicator 1“). In the third and fourth adjudication, Adjudicator 1 found in favour of PSHL and directed RNJM to pay his fees in respect of both adjudications immediately. RNJM failed to pay.

Adjudicator 1 then wrote to both parties threatening legal proceedings and reminding them of their joint and several liability for his fees. PSHL subsequently paid Adjudicator 1’s fees and wrote to RNJM asking for its reasoning as to why it hadn’t paid.

A month later, RNJM initiated the fifth adjudication. In its application to the adjudicator nominated body (RICS), RNJM claimed that there was a conflict of interest with Adjudicator 1 due to a “Dispute over payment with the Referring Party” and requested that that Adjudicator 1 not be appointed for this fifth adjudication. PSHL disputed this, asserting that there was no conflict or dispute concerning Adjudicator 1’s fees, RNJM had simply chosen not to pay. Nevertheless, RICS appointed a different adjudicator (“Adjudicator 2“).

Adjudicator 2 found in RNJM’s favour. PSHL didn’t pay and RNJM referred this to the court for summary judgment.

PSHL sought to resist the enforcement proceedings arguing that RNJM’s claim of a conflict of interest in the application to the RICS was deliberately and recklessly false in an attempt to seek an advantage. On that basis, PSHL argued that RNJM’s application was invalid and Adjudicator 2 lacked jurisdiction.

Legal Issues

The key issue before the court was whether PSHL had a real prospect of successfully arguing that RNJM either deliberately or recklessly made a false statement in the nomination process.

In order to assess this issue, the court had to consider:

• What information was provided by RNJM to support the assertion that there was a conflict of interest with Adjudicator 1.
• Was the information provided false.
• Was the false information given either deliberately or recklessly as to its truth.

Judgment

The court found RNJM’s evidence to be “wholly inadequate to establish the nature and reason for asserting that there was an alleged dispute“. In particular, the Judge noted:

• RNJM’s claim that a conflict of interest existed was merely a bare assertion which there was no attempt whatsoever to justify.
• The RICS nomination form itself contains an express warning that false statements about conflicts of interest could render the adjudicator appointment void. RNJM ignored this warning.
• There was no genuine dispute with Adjudicator 1; RNJM had simply failed to pay his fees.
• RNJM’s failure to respond the PSHL’s repeated legitimate requests for more information about the nature of the alleged dispute was “telling”.

As a result, the court declined RNJM’s application for a summary judgment, concluding that PSHL had a realistic prospect of arguing that Adjudicator 2 lacked jurisdiction due to RNJM’s false statement regarding a conflict of interest.

Takeaway Points

• The decision highlights the importance of parties acting honestly and transparently when completing a nomination form as failure to do so can undermine the validity of the adjudicator’s appointment rendering any adjudicator’s decision obtained unenforceable.
• Non-payment of adjudicator’s fees doesn’t, in itself, create a conflict of interest.

How can we support you

If you have any queries in respect of this bulletin or would like to know more about adjudication please contact Carly Thorpe, Matthew Lyons or Victoria Bramham.

If you’d like to receive this and other similar updates direct to your inbox, please click the link here.

Explore our Adjudication Basics video series here.