Jurisdiction – alleged invalid application to nominating body RNJM Ltd v Purpose Social Homes Ltd [2025] EWHC 2224 (TCC) Her Honour Judge Kelly (judgment 27 August 2025) In the process of applying to the adjudicator nominating body (ANB), the claimant made a statement to the effect that it was in dispute with a named adjudicator who had already dealt with several disputes between the parties. In consequence, the claimant argued there was a possible conflict of interest between the claimant and the adjudicator who should therefore not be appointed in the fresh dispute. The court found that in the absence of a cogent explanation for the statement in the application, the defendant had a reasonable prospect of successfully arguing that the application to the ANB was invalid and the subsequent appointment a nullity, such that the adjudicator did not have jurisdiction and summary judgment was refused. Jurisdiction – substantially the same dispute as previously decided Construction Muzzy Ltd v Davis Construction (South East) Ltd EWHC 2258 (TCC) His Honour District Judge Baldwin (judgment 8 September 2025) The same adjudicator reached decisions in two successive adjudications under separate subcontracts between the same parties. The principal issue in each case surrounded the validity of the subcontractor’s payment notice. In considering the issue afresh in the second adjudication, but in the same manner as the first, i.e. that the payment notice was valid, the adjudicator was not deciding ‘the same dispute’. Natural justice – sufficiency of reasons Clegg Food Projects Ltd v Prestige Car Direct Properties Ltd [2025] EWHC 2173(TCC) Her Honour Judge Kelly (judgment 19 August 2025) An adjudicator asked to make a global valuation was not required to offer the parties the opportunity of commenting on the application of a ‘fair and reasonable rate’ when the rates applied were between the respective parties’ own rates and where he was applying the valuation rules in the contract. These valuation rules were based on the parties’ materials, and both parties had asked him to value at their respective valuations or such other sum as he should think fit. The issues had been canvassed fairly. The figures he arrived at were, in some instances, more than the figures contended for by the defendant and it could not be said that the alleged breach was material or of considerable importance to the outcome. Although the adjudicator had provided additional calculations at the request of the defendant
3
www.ciarb.org
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting