1. Adjudicator’s decision not enforced due to misrepresentation in Adjudicator Nominating Board (“ANB”) application form
The recent case of RNJM Limited v Purpose Social Homes Limited [2025] EWHC 2224 (TCC) reiterates the importance of substance, clarity and thoroughness in completing application forms to ANB’s (“Applications”). A misstatement in an Application may render the adjudicator’s appointment invalid and their decision unenforceable.
This case relates to disputes on a residential development in Harrogate under a JCT Minor Works Contract 2016 (“Contract”) which allowed for adjudication. The parties had been involved in a number of adjudications under the Contract, and under the third and fourth adjudications the adjudicator (Mr. Bunker) appointed by the RICS found against the claimant RNJM Limited (“RNJM”) and ordered RNJM pay his costs. RNJM ignored the order for payment, and subsequent correspondence and the defendant, Purpose Social Homes Limited (“PSHL”) paid the costs as it was jointly and severally liable under the adjudicator’s appointment. For the subsequent fifth adjudication RNJM specified a conflict with Mr. Bunker in the RICS Application on the basis of a “dispute over payment” but did not elaborate further. The appointed adjudicator for the fifth adjudication (Mr. Wood) found for RNJM.
When RNJM sought enforcement of Mr. Wood’s decision PSHL argued that Mr. Wood’s decision was unenforceable as he lacked jurisdiction since a false representation was made in the Application over the alleged conflict and that his appointment was therefore invalid. The Judge agreed and found RNJM had never elaborated on the alleged conflict beyond the single sentence in the Application, nor on the dispute over fees despite several requests by PSHL to do so. The Judge noted that the parties broadly agreed that the issue to be determined was whether PSHL had a “real prospect of successfully arguing that the claimant deliberately or recklessly made a false statement in the process of applying to the RICS for the appointment of an adjudicator for the fifth adjudication”. She found that PSHL did have such real prospects of success and refused RNJM’s application for summary judgment, adding that their evidence was “wholly inadequate”, the questions raised by PSHL were legitimate and the fact RNJM chose not to answer or provide evidence about the dispute was “telling”.
This judgement highlights the need for a party to take care if it wishes to disentitle a particular person from being appointed as adjudicator by one of the Adjudicator Nominating Bodies. Certainly, any such objection should not be flippant in noting “conflicts” to avoid appointment of specific adjudicators. If a party has reasonable concerns about a specific adjudicator’s impartiality it should be clear and elaborate as to the conflict on the Application to mitigate the risk of the appointment being invalid and the decision unenforceable.
RNJM Ltd v Purpose Social Homes Ltd [2025] EWHC 2224 (TCC) (27 August 2025)
2. Sub-contract Payment Notice regimes, estoppel and Payment notice retrospective conversion to Pay Less Notices?
The Court recently had to consider a Part 8 application for declarations as to the contractual payment mechanism under a sub-contract. Vision Construct Limited (“VCL”) had engaged Gypcraft Drylining Contractors limited (“Gypcraft”) under a JCT 2016 DB Sub-contract form (“Sub-contract”). Gypcraft had issued interim payment application 23 for £342,385.52 (“Application 23”). VCL issued a (late) payment notice for Application 23 specifying only £125,437.77 was payable to Gypcraft and paid that amount. Gypcraft commenced an adjudication claiming the remaining £216,947.75 under Application 23 was payable as a notified sum. The adjudicator agreed and found for Gypcraft.
VCL posed three main arguments in respect of the Sub-contract payment mechanism:
- that the Sub-contract, though incorporating various payment schedules failed to identify a “Interim Valuation Date” for the payment cycle to which Application 23 related and therefore Gypcraft had no right to issue Application 23.
- That there was an estoppel by convention established whereby Gypcraft had previously waived VCL’s out of time Payment Notices; and
- Even though served late, VCL’s Payment Notice for Application 23 should be treated as a Pay Less Notice (for which it would have been in time), given it addressed all required criteria for a Pay Less Notice.
The judge rejected all three arguments. As regards the payment schedules, he found these did clearly and methodically set out what was due and when as envisaged by clause 4 of the Sub-contract and the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (the “Act”). He found it would be “perverse and uncommercial to hold that the regime could not work as intended because the words “Sub-Contractor Submission Valuation Date” was used rather than “Interim Valuation Date””. On the estoppel argument he found that there was no evidence of a “convention” whereby VCL had established a habit of submitting late notices which Gypcraft had waived and by so doing it would be unconscionable for them to assert the contractual payment mechanism. On the final point, VCL’s late Payment Notice for Application 23 was clear on its face that it was intended to be a Payment Notice, was named as such and the body of the notice and the covering email referred to it as such. The judge was very clear that he had “no doubt that the document in question was a Payment Notice.” He went further to add it would “entirely undermine the Act and the Sub-contract if what the parties clearly intended to be a Payment Notice could somehow retrospectively be converted into a Pay Less Notice”.
This judgment again underscores the importance of ensuring that construction contracts clearly and adequately address Act compliant criteria in their payment mechanisms and that such payment timeframes should be strictly followed. It also clarifies that such payment mechanisms cannot be circumvented by seeking to subsequently apply documents for a purpose for which they were clearly not intended, in this case by trying to use a clearly named Payment Notices as a Pay Less Notice. Following the contract terms and abiding by the timetable for the issue of Payment Notices is an obviously sensible way to proceed but, as this case illustrates, not doing the simple things well has adverse consequences and the Court's policy is to uphold the Act and view excuses for non-compliance with suspicion.
Vision Construct Ltd v Gypcraft Drylining Contractors Ltd [2025] EWHC 2707 (TCC) (21 October 2025)
3. First injunction sought to prevent Higher Risk Building (“HRB”) occupation
The recent decision in The Health and Safety Executive v Integritas Property Group (IPG) Ltd [2025] EWHC 2613 (TCC) marks the first time the Health and Safety Executive (“HSE”) has sought injunctive relief to prevent occupation of a HRB as a result of Building Safety Act 2022 (“BSA”) breaches.
The project in question was Deakin’s Yard, a multi-story student accommodation development in Newcastle-under-Lyme. Although building control approval was originally granted in 2015, subsequent inspections from 2022 onwards revealed significant fire safety defects. The project had a history of alleged breaches of building safety regulations and was the subject of a contravention notice, cancellation notice, and a stop notice under relevant legislation. Despite the alleged breaches, multiple correspondence on the same from the HSE and the various notices the defendant Integritas Property Group (IPG) Limited (“IPG”) actively sought to market the property for lease in August 2025, in the absence of a completion certificate showing building regulations compliance. As a result, the HSE sought an injunction to prevent occupation of the building.
The Building Safety Act 2022 establishes the HSE as the building safety regulator for higher-risk buildings, with statutory duties to secure the safety of occupants and enforce building regulations. Section 76 of the Act makes it a criminal offence for a relevant accountable person to permit occupation of a residential unit in a higher risk building prior to the issuance of a completion certificate.
Although such applications for injunctive relief normally come from the relevant local authority, the Court considered whether the HSE, as regulator, had standing to seek a prohibitory injunction to restrain imminent breaches of building safety law. The judge reviewed the Court’s equitable jurisdiction to grant injunctions, referencing Broad Idea International Ltd v Convoy Collateral Ltd [2021] UKPC 24 and agreed with the principle that public authorities with statutory responsibilities may seek injunctive relief to prevent interference with those responsibilities, absent contrary statutory language.
The Court granted the injunction finding there was a serious issue to be tried as to the HSE’s standing to obtain an injunction, noting the statutory framework conferred broad powers to enforce building safety requirements, including where necessary to prevent imminent criminal offences and risks to life safety. The urgency of the application was underscored by the imminent risk of occupation and the inadequacy of alternative remedies such as damages applying the long-established principles in American Cyanimide Co v Ethicon Limited.
The seriousness with which the regulator regarded non-compliance in this case should be noted. Whilst the Building Regulations only require reasonable steps to be taken to help ensure the safety of persons in or around buildings when it comes to fire risk, in this case the regulator took a dim view of the attempt by IPG to market leases of a property which was deemed unsafe.
Since the proceedings in this case the Building Safety Regulator (“BSR”) is now in the process of becoming a stand-alone public body distinct from the HSE to be effective in January 2026. Subject to any new powers that may be granted to the BSR in the regulations splitting it from the HSE it is likely the court’s assessment of the HSE’s entitlement to seek injunctive relief in this case would apply equally to the BSR in its new form.
Case link unavailable
4. Assent Insolvency
In early November 2025 one of the biggest UK’s largest private building control firms Assent Building Control Compliance Limited, along with its subsidiaries Oculus Building Consultancy Limited and LB Building Control Limited, (together “Assent”) ceased trading and subsequently entered liquidation. The collapse of such a major player in the building control sector will likely have wide ramifications throughout the whole construction industry, and particularly for HRB developments and the BSR’s Gateway 2 Application process.
The collapse of Assent has led the HSE to issue guidance for project owner with projects engaging members of Assent (link below). Notably that non HRB projects would revert to the relevant local authority unless an alternative registered building control approver is appointed within 7 days, while HRB projects would revert to the BSR. The HSE advised that for any HRB project for which a cancellation notice had been issued, which Assent had done for all live projects, all work must cease, and an application made to the BSR for approval to restart work.
Assent Building Control Compliance Limited: operational notice for project owners - GOV.UK
5. Construction output declines at fastest pace for five years
Early November saw the S&P Global UK Construction Purchasing Managers’ Index (“PMI”) figures for October evidence the fastest decline in construction activity for five years. The PMI, a seasonally adjusted index showing changes in construction industry activity, showed a continuation of the decline in output for the tenth consecutive month and marking the longest period of continuous decline since the global financial crisis in 2008. Civil engineering and residential sectors had particularly sharp falls although the commercial building sector showed little change. Demand for construction products and materials dropped sharply in October which was also the trend for output and new orders. Staffing numbers also showed a reduction at its fastest rate for five years amidst shrinking workloads and increased payroll cost.
S&P Global UK Construction PMI
6. NEC launces NEC Digital enabling users to draft and tender NEC contracts online
The NEC have announced the launch of their new subscription NEC Digital subscription service which will allow users to draft and tender NEC contracts online. The NEC Digital Service will:
- allow selection of the main options and compatible secondary options;
- provide a side-by-side view of main and secondary clauses for more efficient contract navigation;
- allow for secure tender management allowing bidders to access and complete tender documents;
- include a Z clause library for a range of project specific requirements; and
- allow for greater collaboration tools providing stakeholders with a single online platform with multiple access points with relevant permissions.
NEC Digital | Products | NEC Contracts
7. Parliamentarians launch new report calling for a radical shift in Government’s approach to infrastructure delivery
The cross-party group the All-Party Parliamentary Group for project delivery (“APPG”) formed in February 2025 has released a report on its inquiry into improving the delivery of national infrastructure projects (“Report”). Following an extensive inquiry involving written and in person evidence sessions with key stakeholders the Report makes a number of recommendations to the Government to improve project delivery and to assist in meeting the Government’s 10 Year infrastructure plan (“Plan”). These recommendations include:
- A radical shift in delivery culture making project delivery discipline a permanent feature of the Government and Civil Service. This would involve early setting of targets and clarification of resources and accountability;
- Embedding delivery experience early at the policy making stage along with clear benchmarks and targets;
- Professionalising project leadership within Government and the Civil Service with appropriate mandatory training for those managing large scale projects and the requirement of a Chief Project Officer in all government departments;
- Ringfencing funding for support training and apprenticeships to ensure the necessary skills base;
- Strengthening private public partnership and collaboration between the public and private sectors; and
- Ensuring the infrastructure body set up under the Plan, NISTA (the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority), has necessary powers to oversee national infrastructure projects form policy to completion to ensure effective delivery.
8. ICAA launches
The International Construction Arbitration Association (“ICAA”) has been launched with an initial list of 27 full member arbitrators who are both experienced construction professionals and arbitrators experienced in FIDIC and other international forms of contract as well as the ICC and other international construction arbitration forums. The ICAA has also identified next generation members who may progress to full membership of the ICAA with further experience. It is likely that the ICAA will prove a useful resource in the appointment of arbitrators for international construction arbitrations, particularly those involving FIDIC contracts now FIDIC no longer publishes a list of arbitrators.
International Construction Arbitrators Association, ICAA | construction arbitrators
9. Budget
November 26 saw the Chancellor of the Exchequer hand down her second budget. Key points for the construction industry to note from the Budget include:
- The Treasury confirming it would not be moving to a single landfill tax rate of £126.15 per tonne but would retain the current two-tier system with a lower rate of £4.05 per tonne for less polluting materials.
- An increase in the minimum wage of 4.1% for those aged 21 and over while workers aged 18-20 will get a 8.5 per cent increase.
- The funding of apprenticeship schemes for apprentices under 25 employed by small and medium sized enterprises.
CP 1439 – Office for Budget Responsibility – Economic and fiscal outlook – November 2025
