Citiwall Safety Glass Pte Ltd v Mansource Interior Pte Ltd
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Sundaresh Menon CJ |
Judgment Date | 20 August 2015 |
Neutral Citation | [2015] SGCA 42 |
Plaintiff Counsel | A Rajandran (A Rajandran) |
Docket Number | Civil Appeal No 39 of 2014 |
Date | 20 August 2015 |
Hearing Date | 06 May 2015 |
Subject Matter | Dispute resolution,Building and Construction Law,Alternative dispute resolution procedures |
Published date | 09 October 2015 |
Citation | [2015] SGCA 42 |
Defendant Counsel | Lee Peng Khoon Edwin, Poonaam Bai, Vani Nair and Tay Kuan Seng Charles (Eldan Law LLP) |
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Year | 2015 |
This appeal was against the Judge’s decision in
Subsequent to our decision allowing the appeal, the Respondent requested for further arguments with the view to persuading us to review our decision. We declined to do so. In these grounds, we will also address the points which the Respondent had raised in its request for further arguments.
Facts Background to the disputeOn 21 December 2012, the Respondent awarded the Appellant a subcontract (“the Subcontract”) for certain construction works with a value of $1,252,750. Progress payments were to be made by the Respondent according to a schedule of payment under the Subcontract (the Judgment at [2]).
On 5 August 2013, the Appellant served on the Respondent a Payment Claim under s 10(1)(
The Appellant decided to seek adjudication under the SOPA in respect of the Disputed Sum. On 28 August 2013, the Appellant lodged an Adjudication Application with the Singapore Mediation Centre (“SMC”) under s 13(1) of the SOPA. The Adjudication Application was served on the Respondent the following day, 29 August 2013, at 5.25pm as per s 13(4)(
The Adjudicator took the view that by virtue of r 2.2 of the SMC Rules, the Respondent only filed its Adjudication Response on 6 September 2013. It was therefore out of time. As such, he rejected the Adjudication Response pursuant to s 16(2)(
The Judge allowed the Respondent’s appeal for the following reasons:
The Judge also dealt with the Respondent’s two other submissions relating to fraud and the Adjudicator’s failure to consider the material before him. For the purposes of this appeal, they were irrelevant.
The appeal Four issues were raised in the appeal and they are being dealt with
Issue 1: Is r 2.2 of the SMC RulesAll documents to be lodged with SMC shall be lodged during the opening hours of
9am to 4.30pm from Monday to Friday (except public holidays) and 9am to 12.00noon on the eves of Christmas, New Year and Chinese New Year . Documents which are submitted after opening hours shall be treated as being lodged the next working day. [emphasis in original]
First, the Appellant submitted that r 2.2 of the SMC Rules is not
In response, the Respondent submitted that while s 28(4)(
We agreed with the Appellant that r 2.2 is perfectly consistent with s 15(1) of the SOPA. Section 15(1) of the SOPA states that the respondent should file its Adjudication Response within seven days after receipt of the Adjudication Application and the issue in this appeal was whether the SMC had the power to make rules that restricted the lodgement of documents on a particular day to 4.30pm, which was its official closing time. Section 28(4)(
(4) An authorised nominating body shall, in relation to its authorisation under subsection (1) —
…facilitate the conduct of adjudications under this Act, including the establishing of rules therefor not inconsistent with this Act or any other written law , and provide general administrative support therefor; and…
[emphasis added]
The SMC’s power under s 28 to make rules must be read together with s 37 of the SOPA, which states:
Service of documents
To continue reading
Request your trial- Econpile (M) Sdn Bhd v IRDK VenturesSdn Bhd and Another Case
-
Suresh s/o Suppiah v Jiang Guoliang
...the appeal against the Judicial Commissioner’s decision was allowed in Citiwall Safety Glass Pte Ltd v Mansource Interior Pte Ltd [2015] 5 SLR 482, this point was not an issue on appeal. Likewise here then, the Limitation Act does not contain any provisions to explain the computation of tim......
-
Public Prosecutor v BAB
...must be done. [emphasis added] The Court of Appeal revisited this question in Citiwall Safety Glass Pte Ltd v Mansource Interior Pte Ltd [2015] 5 SLR 482. The Court in a judgment delivered by Chao Hick Tin JA, dealt with the effect of the Interpretation Act on the interpretation of s 37(1)(......
-
MRCB BUILDERS SDN BHD vs SMM RESOURCES SDN BHD
...the Singapore cases of W Y Steel Pte Ltd v Osko Pte Ltd [2013] 3 SLR 380 and Citiwall Safety Glass Pte Ltd v Mansource Interior Pte Ltd [2015] SGCA 42. [25] SMM however retorted that the Adjudicator was entitled to withhold the Decision until payment of the adjudication fees and expenses ar......
-
Civil Procedure
...costs be borne by the defendant on a standard basis instead. Interest 8.16 In Citiwall Safety Glass Pte Ltd v Mansource Interior Pte Ltd[2015] 5 SLR 482 (‘Citiwall’), the Court of Appeal considered whether interest had to be paid on a judgment sum when the judgment was overturned but later ......
-
Building and Construction Law
...issue in Mansource No 1 was heard subsequently by the Court of Appeal in Citiwall Safety Glass Pte Ltd v Mansource Interior Pte Ltd[2015] 5 SLR 482 (‘Mansource No 2’). The issue before the court concerned r 2.2 of the Singapore Mediation Centre's Adjudication Procedure Rules (‘SMC Rules’) w......