Choon Hin Stainless Steel Pte Ltd v Best Safety-Glass Manufacturing (S) Pte Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Leslie Chew
• Judgment Date: 14 May 2008
• Neutral Citation: [2008] SGDC 110
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Year: 2008
• Published date: 06 June 2008
• Plaintiff Counsel: Loy Wee Sun (Loy & Company)
• Defendant Counsel: Chan Jer Hiang (Chan Jer Hiang & Co)
• Citation: [2008] SGDC 110

14 May 2008

District Judge Leslie Chew:

Background

1. This is a claim by the Plaintiffs for services and materials provided to the Defendants as subcontractors to works carried out in connection with the upgrading works at Terminal 2 of Changi Airport. In the Statement of Claim the Plaintiffs claimed the sum of $151,113.97 as “the balance price of work done, materials supplied and services rendered, the particulars of which are in the annexures to the Statement of Claim”. The Defendant on their part denied that they were liable for the sum claimed by the Plaintiffs. The Defendants on the other hand also counterclaimed the sum of $191,040.77 being what they say the Plaintiffs owe them on account of various other transactions in the course of their dealings with the Plaintiffs and what may be said to be an associated company of the Plaintiffs.

2. The Plaintiffs are a company providing materials and construction services in metal works. The Defendants are glass contractors. It is common ground that from time to time the parties worked on various construction projects. The subject matter of the present dispute arises from works which the Defendants had undertaken in connection with the upgrading works to Terminal 2 of Changi International Airport. In respect of these works which the Defendants were the subcontractors for the contractors Mero Asia Pacific Pte Ltd (‘Mero’). Mero was a Nominated Subcontractor of the Terminal 2 Project. The Defendants had in turn subcontracted the stainless steel works for the project to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs’ claim in this action is for the work done and materials supplied for these works.

The Issues

3. Both the Plaintiffs and Defendants have in their written closing submissions helpfully identified the issues which will have to be decided. These issues will determine the ultimate outcome of the claim and counterclaim in this action. Although the Plaintiffs had identified 3 issues and the Defendants, 4 issues, I find that both parties were agreed on the substance although the Defendant had broken up the 1^st issue into a further sub-issue. For convenience, I will adopt the characterization of the issues identified by the Defendants, although the 1^st and 2^nd issues as identified by the Defendants may be taken together.

4. I would therefore state the issues as follows:

a. Whether the Plaintiffs’ claim for $151,113.97 is sustainable having regard to the invoices, the total value of which amounts to $186,289.66, and which the Defendants by their Defence and Counterclaim dispute that the Plaintiffs are entitled to payment?

b. Whether the retention sum for the works carried out by the Plaintiffs under the contract between parties was 2.5% (as claimed by the Plaintiffs) or 10% (as maintained by the Defendants)?

c. Whether the parties had agreed to set off the sum of $101,718.12 which Richinn Glasstech International Pte Ltd owed to the Defendants against the sums due to the Plaintiffs in respect of the works in the present dispute?

First Issue – Whether the Plaintiffs’ claim for $151,113.97 is sustainable having regard to the Invoices, the total value of which amounts to $186,289.66, which the Defendants by their Defence and Counterclaim dispute that the Plaintiffs are entitled to payment?

5. The claim by the Plaintiffs is a straightforward one. The amount they claimed is for work they say they have done and for materials they say they have supplied. The Defendants dispute the claim on two principal bases. First, the Defendants say that they disputed those invoices which they have particularized in the paragraph 2 of the Defence (‘the Disputed Invoices) on the basis that there was no agreement or between parties for these works. Essentially there was no contract. Second, the Defendants raised 6 specific categories of objections to the Disputed Invoices. These specific objections were noted by the Defendants in the Scott Schedule[note: 1]which I had directed parties to prepare. The 6 categories are as follows:

a. No instructions by the Defendants to carry out the works.

b. No delivery orders i.e. no proof that the works were carried out.

c. No quotation or sales contract.

d. No acknowledgement signature of the Defendants – proof of instructions to carry out the work.

e. No quote before work commenced.

f. Defendants unable to verify whether work completed or not.

6. The Plaintiff called 3 witnesses. So far as the actual work that was done in the project under dispute, PW2 Tan Soon Gee who was the Plaintiffs’ Manager dealing with the project was the principal witness. PW2’s evidence in chief was that the under the project they were instructed to do the works by the Defendants through the issue and transmittal of ‘cutting lists’ to the Plaintiffs, a summary of which PW2 referred to in exhibit TSG-1 to his Affidavit Evidence-In-Chief (AEIC). He also testified in his AEIC that all the works required of the Plaintiffs by the Defendants were in fact carried out. In His AEIC PW2 also deposed that from accounting ledgers of the Defendants namely the Supplier Balance Detail, it also shows that the Defendants are liable to the Plaintiffs for the Disputed Invoices save for invoice Nos. 4300 and 4301 which invoices postdate the Supplier Balance Detail.

7. The general import of PW2’s evidence even under cross-examination was that the Plaintiffs had carried out the works and supplied the materials as required of them under the contract with the Defendants.

8. The Defendants’ position with respect to the Disputed Invoices was that some of the works covered by the Disputed Invoices, particularly those in respect of Phases 1C and 1D of the project, were not supported by signed contracts between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. On these, PW2 testified that in fact these were covered by a signed contract dated 12 November 2003 which describes the works to be undertaken by the Plaintiffs and accepted by the Defendants, as ‘Supply & Installation of Stainless Steel Gutter to Leaf Canopy’ in respect of the Upgrading of Changi Airport Terminal 2.

9. PW2 also testified under cross-examination that in respect of those Disputed Invoices where there were no contracts or quotations, those works which were identical to those in Phases 1C and 1D the Defendants’ Fang Lung Yu who is also known as and referred to as ‘Ah Lu’ had instructed the Plaintiffs to carry out the works based on prices of materials and services applicable to Phase 1B of the project which had quotations with prices. Equally, in respect of those works which were not identical to those in Phase 1B (and therefore without applicable prices or rates), he sent to the Defendants fresh quotations in any event but the Defendants did not confirm or acknowledge these, even though it comprised works which ‘Ah Lu’ had told the Plaintiffs to carry out.

10. The Defendants’ witness DW1, Fang Jung-Fu, was the main witness who testified on the works under dispute. DW1 frankly admitted and Counsel for the Defendants in his Opening Submissions also conceded that DW1’s has no direct knowledge of the matters the Plaintiffs are asserting and the evidence they are relying upon in their claim. This is because the Plaintiffs had, in respect of the project, dealt with DW1’s brother, ‘Ah Lu’ who has since relinquished management of the Defendant company. DW1 was at the material time, not in Singapore but in China. Both in his evidence in chief as well as under cross-examination, DW1 testified that his evidence was based on whatever documents and records he could find in the Defendant company. To put it shortly, DW1’s...