Chua Say Eng (formerly trading as Weng Fatt Construction Engineering) v Lee Wee Lick Terence (alias Li Weili Terence)
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Tay Yong Kwang J |
Judgment Date | 29 April 2011 |
Neutral Citation | [2011] SGHC 109 |
Citation | [2011] SGHC 109 |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Published date | 09 April 2013 |
Docket Number | Originating Summons No 783 of 2010 (Registrar’s Appeal No 454 of 2010) (Summonses 387 of 2011 and 402 of 2011) |
Plaintiff Counsel | Edwin Lee and Joni Tan (Eldan Law LLP) |
Defendant Counsel | Adrian Wong and Nelson Goh (Rajah & Tann LLP) (briefed) and Koh Kok Kwang (CTLC Law Corporation) |
Subject Matter | Building and Construction Law,Statutes and regulations |
Hearing Date | 24 March 2011,14 January 2011,20 January 2011 |
This was an appeal against the decision of an Assistant Registrar (“the AR”) dismissing the defendant’s application to set aside an adjudication determination dated 7 July 2010 (“the Adjudication Determination”) made under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) (“the SOPA”). The defendant’s application was made in response to the plaintiff’s application (by way of Originating Summons No 783 of 2010) to enforce the Adjudication Determination as a judgment under section 27 of the SOPA.
The defendant raised three issues before the AR, who decided all three of them against him. Before me, the defendant only appealed against the AR’s findings on two of the three issues. After hearing the arguments from both parties, I agreed with the AR on one issue but disagreed with him on the other. In the result, I allowed the defendant’s appeal and his application.
As the Adjudication Determination was for the sum of only $125,450.40, the parties required leave under section 34(2)(a) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) if they wished to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The defendant applied for leave to appeal against my decision on the issue on which I agreed with the AR and ruled against him. The defendant’s application was however contingent on the plaintiff also seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. One day after the defendant filed his application, the plaintiff did apply for such leave.
The SOPA has been the subject of several High Court decisions. In my opinion, a decision of the Court of Appeal would help clarify the law on payment claims under the SOPA for the construction industry. I therefore gave both parties leave to appeal despite the fact that they had already proceeded to litigate their dispute in court. Both the plaintiff and the defendant have filed their appeals accordingly (Civil Appeal No 46 of 2011 and Civil Appeal No 44 of 2011 respectively) and I now set out the grounds of my decision.
Brief factual background The AR has set out the facts in detail at
The plaintiff is in the business of building and renovation works. The defendant is a private individual who engaged the plaintiff in August 2008 as the main contractor for the conversion of his two-storey house at 1 Pasir Ris Heights into a three-storey house. Relations soured and the defendant purported to terminate his contract with the plaintiff by way of a letter dated 21 April 2010. In the same letter, the plaintiff was instructed to vacate the construction site by 12 noon on 26 April 2010. On 2 June 2010, the plaintiff served “Payment Claim No 6” on the defendant. The defendant did not serve a payment response.
On 18 June 2010, the plaintiff served the defendant with a “Notice of Intention to Apply for Adjudication” in compliance with section 13(2) of the SOPA. On 22 June 2010, the plaintiff filed an adjudication application (“the Adjudication Application”) with the Singapore Mediation Centre (“the SMC”). The SMC served the Adjudication Application on the defendant that same day. The defendant did not lodge an adjudication response with the SMC.
On 7 July 2010, the Adjudication Determination was made, awarding the plaintiff $125,450.40. As stated above, the plaintiff applied to enforce this and hence the defendant’s application to set it aside.
The issues The AR identified the three issues which arose before him as follows (see
The AR decided all three issues against the defendant and dismissed his application to set aside the Adjudication Determination. Before me, on the defendant’s appeal against the AR’s dismissal of his application, the defendant only contested the AR’s findings on the first and the third issues.
The preliminary question which these two issues raised was whether the court ought to even review the Adjudicator’s decision on the said issues.
The earlier cases Following Judith Prakash J’s (“Prakash J’s”) decision in
At54
I was unable to accept the respondent's argument that the jurisdiction of the Adjudicator was determined according to whether the claimant had followed the requirements of the SOP Act in connection with the form and content of the payment claim and the time at which it had to be served, or not . I took the view that the Adjudicator's jurisdiction, in the sense of his power to hear and determine the adjudication, could not depend on such adventitious elements.It appeared to me that, as the claimant submitted, the Adjudicator's jurisdiction arose from his appointment by an authorised nominating body under s 14(1) of the SOP Act and from his acceptance of such appointment. Whether the payment claim was in proper order or not would not have an impact on the Adjudicator's jurisdiction, though of course if it was not in order, the Adjudicator would be able to throw out the claim on that basis.Once an appointment had been made and confirmed to the parties by the authorised nominating body under s 14(3), jurisdiction would have been conferred on the Adjudicator in relation to that particular adjudication application .[emphasis added]
56
Similarly, under our legislation, the jurisdiction of an adjudicator stems from his appointment. It does not stem from a properly completed and served payment claim. The powers and functions of the adjudicator come from s 16 of the SOP Act and not from any action on the part of the claimant. The respondent's argument in respect of the Adjudicator's jurisdiction was analogous to an argument that the High Court's jurisdiction to hear any particular dispute depends on whether the writ of summons or other originating process is in proper form when in fact the court's jurisdiction comes from the provisions of the SCJA or other relevant legislation, depending on the nature of the proceedings.[emphasis added]
Therefore, according to Prakash J, an adjudicator obtains jurisdiction to hear and determine an adjudication application as soon as he accepts the appointment made by the SMC. Applying that to the case before me, it appears that as an adjudicator’s jurisdiction does not stem from a “properly completed and served payment claim”, this court should not be reviewing the Adjudicator’s decision on the two issues raised in this appeal.
About two months after her decision in
42 Accordingly, instead of reviewing the merits (in any direct or indirect fashion),
it is my view that the court's role must be limited to supervising the appointment and conduct of the adjudicator to ensure that the statutory provisions governing such appointment and conduct are adhered to and that the process of the adjudication, rather than the substance, is proper . After all, in any case, even if the adjudicator does make an error of fact or law in arriving at his adjudication determination, such error can be rectified or compensated for in subsequent arbitration or court proceedings initiated in accordance with the contract between the claimant and the respondent and intended to resolve all contractual disputes that have arisen.[emphasis added]
To further elucidate the limits of the court’s role, Prakash J had regard to the New South Wales Court of Appeal (“NSW CA”) case of
The basic and essential requirements appear to include the following:
As for more detailed statutory requirements of the NSW Act such as “section 13(2) as to the content of payment claims; section 17 as to the time when an adjudication application can be made and as to its...[emphasis added]
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lee Wee Lick Terence v Chua Say Eng
...Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30 B, 2006 Rev Ed) (‘the Act’) (see Chua Say Eng v Lee Wee Lick Terence [2011] SGHC 109 (‘the GD’)). The background of the Act 2 Before addressing the facts of this case, we ought to briefly set out the policy behind and the pu......
-
Liao He Pte Ltd v JFC Builders Pte Ltd
...Pte Ltd [2008] SGHC 159; Doo Ree Engineering & Trading Pte Ltd v Taisei Corp [2009] SGHC 218; Chua Say Eng v Lee Wee Lick Terence [2011] SGHC 109; and Chase Oyster Bar V Hamo Industries [2010] NSWCA 190. JFC’s JFC relies on 4 broad reasons to argue against the Preliminary Objection. First, ......
-
Lee Wee Lick Terence (alias Li Weili Terence) v Chua Say Eng (formerly trading as Weng Fatt Construction Engineering) and another appeal
...(“the Act”) (see Chua Say Eng (formerly trading as Weng Fatt Construction Engineering) v Lee Wee Lick Terence (alias Li Weili Terence) [2011] SGHC 109 (“the GD”)). The background of the Act Before addressing the facts of this case, we ought to briefly set out the policy behind and the purpo......
-
Admin Construction Pte Ltd v Vivaldi (S) Pte Ltd
...v Mothew [1998] Ch 1 (folld) Brookhollow Pty Ltd v R&R Consultants Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1 (refd) Chua Say Eng v Lee Wee Lick Terence [2011] SGHC 109 (refd) JFC Builders Pte Ltd v Lion City Construction Co Pte Ltd [2013] 1 SLR 1157 (refd) Lee Wee Lick Terence v Chua Say Eng [2013] 1 SLR 401 ......
-
Challenging an Adjudicator's Determination: The Extent of the Court's Supervisory Role
...on this issue, Chua Say Eng (formerly trading as Weng Fatt Construction Engineering) v Lee Wee Lick Terence (alias Li Weili Terence) [2011] SGHC 109, the court revisited the different judicial approaches on the effect of an invalid payment claim on the Adjudicator's jurisdiction. That case ......
-
Building and Construction Law
...of $125,450.40 but the owner applied to have the determination set aside. In the High Court (Chua Say Eng Sylvia v Lee Wee Lick Terence[2011] SGHC 109, discussed in (2011) 12 SAL Ann Rev), Tay Yong Kwang J considered the operation of s 10(2) of the SOP Act and reg 5(1) of the SOP Regulation......
-
Building and Construction Law
...matter is resolved by an arbitrator or the courts. 7.32 It was settled by the High Court in Chua Say Eng Sylvia v Lee Wee Lick Terence[2011] SGHC 109 (Chua Say Eng) that compliance with the prescribed timelines goes to the validity of the payment claim. The court in this case cited with app......