The law and the issue before the court
The test for summary judgment was set out in Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 24.3. The court was referred to cases that set out the principles that needed to be applied, and to Eurocom v Siemens [2014]. [6] The latter was referred to in the RICS guidance on conflicts of interest and in relation to statements made in respect of applications for a nomination, which warned that false statements could result in the appointment being invalid and any subsequent decision a nullity for lack of jurisdiction. The issue before the court was whether the defendant could successfully argue that the claimant either deliberately or recklessly made a false statement in the process of applying to RICS for an adjudicator.
The judgment
On the evidence and consideration of the submissions, the court concluded that the claimant had provided no adequate reasons for asserting that there was a conflict of interest between them and Mr B. There was no dispute as to the award of, or the amount of, his fees. There was no attempt to justify their concern that there was a risk or perception of apparent bias because Mr B had found it necessary to threaten legal action against both parties unless his fees were paid, or because it was the defendant, and not the claimant, who had paid them. The court found it relevant that the severe consequences (if a potential conflict was not justified that the adjudication will be void) were not addressed by the claimant’s evidence. The defendant had ‘a realistic prospect of successfully arguing the various points it raised about the lack of jurisdiction of the adjudicator on the basis that the claimant made a false statement about a conflict of interest on the adjudication referral form’. The court clarified that it made no final finding on the questions, merely that the short route of summary enforcement was not available to the claimant.
In the circumstances, a secondary question as to whether there should be a stay did not need to be addressed.
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 claimant subcontractor applied for summary judgment to enforce two adjudication awards in its favour. The defendant contractor opposed the applications on several grounds, alleging breach of the rules of natural justice in the first adjudication, lack of jurisdiction in the second adjudication, and bringing Part 8
6
www.ciarb.org
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting