Assoland Construction Pte Ltd v Malayan Credit Properties Pte Ltd

JurisdictionSingapore
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
JudgeGoh Phai Cheng JC
Judgment Date12 July 1993
Neutral Citation[1993] SGHC 161
Citation[1993] SGHC 161
Plaintiff CounselLim Chung Wei (Boey Ng & Wan)
Date12 July 1993
Published date19 September 2003
Defendant CounselWoo Bih Li (Bih Li & Lee)
Docket NumberSuit No 271 of 1993
Subject MatterPayments under interim certificates,Summary judgment,Whether extension of time validly given,Delay certificate issued,Set-off against the amounts due under interim certificates,Effect of implied undertaking on defendants' rights under the contract,Building and construction contracts,Application for summary judgment,Sham defence,Use of standard form contract,Building and Construction Law,Architect granted extension of time after the works were practically completed,Whether defendants had defence of set-off,Civil Procedure
The background

The plaintiffs are building contractors. The defendants are the owners of a building. On 14 November 1990 the parties executed a formal agreement whereby the plaintiffs undertook the works for the construction and completion of a 12-storey building with a basement at Ardmore Park. The agreement was in the form of the 1987 revised version of the standard form of contract of the Singapore Institute of Architects. Forming part of and attached to the agreement are, inter alia, the conditions of contract (`conditions of contract`) and an appendix. In this judgment, unless the context otherwise requires, a reference to a cl by number is a reference to a cl by the same number in the conditions of contract.

Under the contract, the scheduled completion date for the works was 19 September 1991. The works were not completed by that date.

On the following dates the plaintiffs submitted to the architect of the project (`the architect`) claims for extensions of time to complete the works pursuant to cl 23(1):

Date No of days sought Revised completion date 15 October 1991 174.5 days 11 March 1992 19 September 1991 343.8 days 27 August 1992 27 March 1992 450 days 13 December 1992

In addition to the above claims for extensions of time, the plaintiffs notified the architect in writing, pursuant to cl 23(2), of the events, directions or instructions which the plaintiffs relied on for their claim to be entitled to extensions of time under cl 23(1). A curious feature in the present case is that the architect failed to comply with cl 23(2) which requires him to inform the plaintiffs of his decision within one month of the plaintiffs` notification of the particular event, instruction or direction which formed the basis of the extension of time. All of sudden on 4 November 1992, the architect issued a `delay certificate` pursuant to cl 24(1) stating, inter alia, that the time for the completion of the works was extended for a total of 218 days and accordingly the latest date for the completion of the works was 24 April 1992. I shall revert to the `delay certificate` later.

On 20 July 1992 the architect wrote to the developers stating, inter alia, that:

(a) the date of completion was extended to 31 January 1992 and the `delay certificate` will be issued thereafter; and

(b) the date of practical completion will be 1 July 1992.



On 31 July 1992 the architect issued a certificate of completion certifying that the works were practically completed on 1 July 1992.

Monthly interim payment certificates (`interim certificates`) were issued by the architect under cl 31(1) for payment to the plaintiffs of the sums stated in those certificates and the plaintiffs were entitled to be paid those sums by the defendants within 14 days of the receipt of the interim certificates.

The architect had issued interim certificates Nos 23 and 24 on the following dates for the following amounts:

Date Interim certificate Amount 15 July 1992 No 23 $309,160 11 August 1992 No 24 $170,860

Total

$480,020

Those interim certificates were not paid by the defendants within the period named in the contract for honouring interim certificates.

Subsequently, the architect also issued two other interim certificates, namely:

(a) interim certificate No 23R dated 15 July 1992 consisting of one page, the contents of which are essentially the same as that of the first page of interim certificate No 23; and

(b) interim certificate No 24R dated 11 August 1992 also consisting of one page, the contents of which are also essentially the same as that of the first page of interim certificate No 24.



No payment was made to the plaintiffs under interim certificate Nos 23R and 24R.

On 16 October 1992, the representatives of the plaintiffs and the defendants together with the architect met with a view to resolving the settlement of the outstanding sums owing by the defendants to the plaintiffs under the contract. An agreement was reached by the parties that:

(a) the architect`s interim certificate Nos 23R and 24R would be withdrawn;

(b) the architect would issue a new interim certificate No 23A dated 16 October 1992 to the defendants for the amount of $480,020;

(c) the plaintiffs would forward a letter agreeing to the withdrawal of interim certificate Nos 23R and 24R and thus there will be no interest due for late payment of the sums stated in those certificates; and

(d) the defendants would release payment within two weeks from the date of new interim certificate No 23A.



An interim certificate No 23A dated 16 October 1992 for the amount of $480,020 was duly issued by the architect.

On 20 October 1992 the plaintiffs wrote to the defendants stating that they will not claim `any interest in respect of interim certificate No 23A providing (sic) payment for the certificate which amounts to $480,020 is received by us before 30 October 1992`. The plaintiffs further confirmed that interim certificate Nos 23R and 24R should be withdrawn and that they will not claim any interest in respect of the sums stated in those two certificates.

On 4 November 1992 the plaintiffs received a cheque for $280,000 from the defendants being payment for interim certificate No 23A. On the same day, the plaintiffs wrote to the defendants stating that the payment of the said sum did not constitute a discharge for interim certificate No 23A and informing them that unless the difference was paid within seven days thereof action will be taken against the defendants.

On 4 November 1992 the architect also issued a `delay certificate` under cl 24(1) and it states:

Pursuant to cl 24(1) of the conditions of contract, I hereby certify that the contract completion date (as revised in my revision certificate dated ... ) was 19 September 1991; that pursuant to cl 23 of the conditions I have further extended the time for completion for a total of two hundred and eighteen (218) days;
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Aoki Corp v Lippoland (Singapore) Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 22 February 1995
    ...Waltham Holy Cross Urban District Council [1952] 2 All ER 452 (refd) Assoland Construction Pte Ltd v Malayan Credit Properties Pte Ltd [1993] 2 SLR (R) 444; [1993] 3 SLR 470 (not folld) Lojan Properties Pte Ltd v Tropicon Contractors Pte Ltd [1991] 1 SLR (R) 622; [1991] SLR 80 (distd) Mille......
  • OMG Holdings Pte Ltd v Pos Ad Sdn Bhd
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 17 November 2011
    ...An Bord Tráchtala v Waterford Foods plc [1994] FSR 316 (folld) Assoland Construction Pte Ltd v Malayan Credit Properties Pte Ltd [1993] 2 SLR (R) 444; [1993] 3 SLR 470 (refd) Baird Textiles Holdings Ltd v Marks & Spencer plc [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 737 (refd) Boys v Chaplin [1971] AC 356 (re......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT