Tony Pulis must pay Crystal Palace £3.77m after he was found to have deceived a Premier League managers’ arbitration tribunal. He lost his appeal against an arbitration ruling that followed his departure from the club in 2014.

The West Bromwich Albion manager left his post at Selhurst Park less than 48 hours before their opening game of the season against Arsenal after a dispute over a £2m “survival” bonus he was due for saving Palace from relegation. The Palace owner, Steve Parish, agreed to pay Pulis the bonus more than two weeks before it was due but demanded he return it after his sudden and unexpected departure two days later.

In March the Premier League’s mediation panel found in favour of Palace and Parish, with Pulis ordered to return the bonus and pay a further £1m in legal costs and damages for breach of contract. That decision was appealed by Pulis but a ruling from the commercial court last week dismissed his appeal and ordered him to pay liquidated damages for £1.5m as well as £2.276m damages for “deceit”.

Details emerged in a written ruling published by the judge on Monday. Pulis alleged there had been “serious irregularity” in the panel’s initial decision, which was taken under the FA’s Rule K Arbitrations, a method of resolving disputes without going to court which usually ensures confidentiality. However, Judge Sir Michael Burton dismissed Pulis’s appeal after upholding the panel’s verdict he had made two fraudulent misrepresentations.

The first related to a claim Pulis had assured Parish he was committed to the club and would be staying until at least 31 August 2014, when the bonus was due to be paid. He had told Palace he urgently needed the money early so “he could buy some land for his children” but Sir Michael found there was a “lack of evidence” to support this claim.

Pulis had also alleged a “heated players meeting” (HPM) took place on 12 August; but the mediation panel ruled it had taken place on 8 August – four days before he received the payment. That was despite oral evidence to the contrary from the Palace players Lewis Price and Stuart O’Keefe. That was dismissed by the judge due to evidence provided by Parish that he had not been at the training ground, including his presence at a hairdressers on the day in question.

“The arbitrators set the oral evidence for the claimant against the following,” read the ruling. “First, the evidence of Mr Parish, the chairman, in the following paragraphs. In paragraph 45 the evidence of Mr Parish is recorded that the HPM could not have taken place on 12 August as the claimant claimed, since he, Mr Parish, was not at the training ground on 12 August.

“But so far as Mr Parish is concerned, the arbitrators set out in paragraphs 56, 57, 62, 63, 64 and 78 to 79 the evidence which was adduced as to Mr Parish’s movements on 12 August, and the supportive evidence of taxi fares, of telecommunications evidence called as expert evidence, and the hairdressing salon at which he attended on the relevant morning when the HPM is said to have occurred, and the arbitrators were persuaded by that evidence.”

The panel added that Pulis was “not willing to concede the heated players’ meeting did not occur on 12 August because he otherwise had no explanation [for his departure]”. The original ruling found Pulis’s standards of conduct had “been shown to be disgraceful”. That was referenced in Sir Michael’s final decision which said he had “reached a consequential conclusion that it was appropriate in the circumstances to make an award of indemnity costs because of their conclusions as to the conduct of the claimant.”

The judge said he had analysed Pulis’s complaints about the arbitrators’ decisions and concluded his challenge should be dismissed. He said he would enforce the damages awarded by the arbitrators. Sir Michael said the arbitration panel had heard evidence behind closed doors.

He had also analysed Pulis’s challenge at a private hearing – in line with judges’ normal policy but thought it appropriate his ruling should be made public.