A recent decision in the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) has refused to enforce an adjudication decision due to misrepresentations made on an adjudicator nomination form. This is the first time since Eurocom vs Siemens in 2014 that such a challenge has been upheld. Genuine conflicts of interests are rare, and parties who have genuine concerns over the appropriateness of particular adjudicators should take special care in the way in which such concerns are drawn to the attention of a nominating body. 

In Eurocom v Siemens [2014] EWHC 3710 (TCC), Siemens had sought to defend enforcement proceedings on the basis that Eurocom had made false representations in its application for nomination submitted to RICS. Mr Justice Ramsey concluded that the making of fraudulent representations on such a form would be sufficient to invalidate the adjudication process regardless of whether the nominating body had relied on the representation. The fraud invalidated the application. 

The court determined that that the words used by Eurocom on its application form (“We would advise that the following should not be appointed”) constituted a fraudulent misrepresentation that the adjudicators identified had a conflict of interest, which rendered the application invalid and the appointed adjudicator without jurisdiction. Commenting shortly after the decision, in CSK Electrical Contractors Ltd vs Kingwood Electrical Services Ltd [2015] EWHC 667 (TCC), Mr Justice Coulson stated, “There can be no doubt that the facts of Eurocom have shaken public confidence in the adjudication process.”

In no other case has this principle prevented the enforcement of an adjudication decision until a TCC decision last month.

Read more…