Aurum Building Services (Pte) Ltd v Greatearth Construction Pte Ltd

JurisdictionSingapore
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
JudgeKan Ting Chiu J
Judgment Date18 June 1994
Neutral Citation[1994] SGHC 166
Citation[1994] SGHC 166
Publication Date24 December 2003
SubjectMain contractor's right of set-off,Building and Construction Law,Main contractor purporting to set off its claim against amounts certified by architect to be payable to sub-contractor,Set-off and abatement,Whether main contractor had a right to set-off under the terms of the sub-contract,Whether main contractor entitled to stay of proceedings pending arbitration of its claims under the terms of the sub-contract,Grounds,Arbitration,Stay of court proceedings,Whether sub-contractor entitled to summary judgment on amount certified,Application for summary judgment on architect's interim certificate by sub-contractor,Architect's interim certificate requiring payment to sub-contractor not taking into account set-off claimed
Docket NumberSuit No 1381 of 1993
Plaintiff CounselAnne Loke (Lee Lam & Pnrs)
Date18 June 1994
Defendant CounselM Sivakumar (Arthur Loke & Pnrs)

[Please note that this case has not been edited in accordance with current Singapore Law Reports house style.]

Kan Ting Chiu J:

1 This case called for an examination of a sub-contractor’s right to certified progress payments and the main contractor’s right to make set-offs against the certified sums under the Singapore Institute of Architects’ forms of main contract and sub-contract.

2 The plaintiffs were the nominated sub-contractor for sanitary and plumbing works for the Leonie Gardens Condominium. The defendants were the main contractor for the project. The plaintiffs’ claim against the defendants fell mainly under two heads, firstly for $225,392.60 being the total amount certified by payment by the project architect in four interim certificates, and, secondly, for $597,609.33 for accelerated work carried out by them. The parties agreed that the architect had certified $225,392.60 for payment. This was stated in the affidavits filed by them and confirmed by their counsel in the course of argument, although the four certificates exhibited by the plaintiffs were actually issued by the quantity surveyors.

3 The defendants refused to make payment under the certificates on the ground that they have two claims against the plaintiffs in the sum of $368,129.70 which they purported to set off against the certified amount.

4 Against this background, the plaintiffs took out this action against the defendants and applied for summary judgment for the certified amount and the defendants responded by applying to stay the action pending arbitration.

5 At this point it is useful to refer to the contractual provisions the parties relied on in support of their applications. The plaintiffs relied on cl 30(1)(a) and (b) of the main contract, which provide that:

(a) Interim certificates of the architect in favour of the contractor under cl 31 of these conditions shall state separately the amounts in each certificate due to each individual nominated sub-contractor or supplier (or to designated sub-contractors or suppliers whose work or materials or goods are the subject of a PC item) as the value of their work, goods or materials carried out or delivered at the relevant date under that clause, which amounts shall be paid by the contractor to such nominated or designated sub-contractors or suppliers, less retention moneys or any set-off or counterclaim to which the contractor may be entitled, within 14 days of receipt by the contractor from the employer of the amounts so due under the certificate of the architect.

(b) In issuing such an interim certificate the architect, after receiving representations and enquiring into the matter, may (but shall not be obliged to) take into account in any such valuation any dispute, claim, set-off, defence or counterclaim as between the contractor of the one part and the designated or nominated sub-contractor or supplier of the other part arising out of their sub-contract. If so, the certificate shall separately state any sum so deducted or taken into account or allowed (or, if it be the case, disallowed) by the architect when giving his certificate, in which event the contractor and designated or nominated sub-contractor or supplier shall be bound by such deduction or taking into account or allowance or disallowance until final judgement or award in any dispute between them and, if relevant, the employer and contractor shall likewise be bound in any dispute between them, as the case may be. Provided that in issuing such certificates the architect shall disregard and not take account of any sum arising out of any disputes, claims, set-offs, defences or counterclaims as between the sub-contractor or supplier and the contractor unless any such sum shall be in principle recoverable by the contractor from the employer or by the employer from the contractor under or by virtue of any provision of this contract, and so require to be certified or taken into account as between the contractor and the employer under cl 31 of these conditions …

and cll 13.1 and 13.2 of the sub-contract, which read:

13.1 The sub-contractor will (unless the schedule hereto provides to the contrary) be paid within 14 days after payment or deemed payment of the main contractor by the employer following certification by the architect of the amounts paid or deemed to be paid to the main contractor and accordingly due to the sub-contractor in all respects in accordance with cll 30(1) and (2) and 31 of the main contract conditions.

13.2 In so far as the architect may decide the amounts due to the sub-contractor and any matter of defence, set-off or counterclaim as between the parties to this sub-contract for the purposes of determining the amounts to be certified for payment by him in the main contract pursuant to cl 30(1) of the main contract conditions, or any matters of extension of time and delay under cl 11(2) of this sub-contract, such decisions and certificates shall be binding until final judgment or award in any dispute between the parties to this sub-contract.

6 The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Kum Leng General Contractor v Hytech Builders Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 29 February 1996
    ...Daniel Koh (Allen & Gledhill) for the respondent/defendant. Aurum Building Services (Pte) Ltd v Greatearth Construction Pte Ltd [1994] 2 SLR (R) 805; [1994] 3 SLR 330 (folld) Dawnays Ltd v F G Minter Ltd and Trollope and Colls Ltd [1971] 1 WLR 1205; [1976] 1 BLR 16 (not folld) Gilbert-A......
  • All-Trade Construction Pte Ltd v Lo Geok Kwee
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 29 June 2000
    ......In 1997, the defendant decided to erect a seven-storey building on the property. By a letter dated 27 May 1997, her architects, Messrs ... plaintiffs had in breach of contract wrongfully terminated their services and thereby caused loss and damage to the defendant. The defendant put in ...In a subsequent decision, Aurum Building Services (Pte) Ltd v Greatearth Construction Pte Ltd [1994] 3 ......
  • Hiap Tian Soon Construction Pte Ltd and Another v Hola Development Pte Ltd and Another
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 31 October 2002
    ...damaged in grids 8/B and 6/A (see [68]-[72]). Case(s) referred to Aurum Building Services (Pte) Ltd v Greatearth Construction Pte Ltd [1994] 3 SLR 330 Dauphin Offshore Engineering & Trading Pte Ltd v The Private Office of HRH Sheikh Sultan bin Khalifa [2000] 1 SLR 657 (refd) GHL Pte Ltd......
  • Sinwa SS (HK) Co Ltd v Nordic International Ltd and another
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 6 January 2015
    ...v Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co Ltd [1988] 1 SLR(R) 1, Aurum Building Services (Pte) Ltd v Greatearth Construction Pte Ltd [1994] 2 SLR(R) 805, and Coop International Pte Ltd v Ebel SA [1998] 1 SLR(R) 615). Yet another example would be the decision in Shunmugam Jayakumar and oth......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Arbitration
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review Nbr. 2005, December 2005
    • 1 December 2005
    ...International (Pte) Ltd v Lim Eng Hock Peter[1997] 1 SLR 241; Aurum Building Services (Pte) Ltd v Greatearth Construction Pte Ltd[1994] 3 SLR 330; and Uni-Navigation Pte Ltd v Wei Loong Shipping Pte Ltd[1993] 1 SLR 876. 3.2 A more enlightened approach appears to have been taken in the decis......
  • REFLECTIONS ON THE SINGAPORE INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS’ CONDITIONS OF SUB CONTRACT (SECOND EDITION)
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal Nbr. 2000, December 2000
    • 1 December 2000
    ...Aoki Corporation v Lippoland (Singapore) Pte Ltd(1995) 2 SLR 609 31 See Aurum Building Services Pte Ltd v Greatearth Construction Pte Ltd(1994) 3 SLR 330. 32 Paragraph 2 Part 1 of Guidance Notes entitled “Architect’s Powers” issued in conjunction with the first edition of the SIA Main Contr......

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