CKR Contract Services Pte Ltd v Asplenium Land Pte Ltd and others
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Ang Cheng Hock J |
Judgment Date | 29 June 2020 |
Neutral Citation | [2020] SGHC 133 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Lee Sien Liang Joseph, Qabir Singh Sandhu and Yap Pei Yin (LVM Law Chambers LLC) |
Docket Number | Suit No 1274 of 2015 (Summons No 4732 of 2019) |
Date | 29 June 2020 |
Hearing Date | 09 March 2020,02 March 2020 |
Subject Matter | Pleadings,Cause of action estoppel,Res Judicata,Striking out,Extended doctrine of res judicata,Issue estoppel,Civil Procedure,Identity of issues,Identity of causes of action |
Published date | 03 July 2020 |
Defendant Counsel | Chuah Chee Kian Christopher, Kua Lay Theng and Rachael Chong Rae-Hua (WongPartnership LLP) |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Citation | [2020] SGHC 133 |
Year | 2020 |
This judgment concerns an application by the first defendant (Summons No 4732 of 2019) to strike out the action brought by the plaintiff against it in Suit No 1274 of 2015 (“Suit 1274”) under O 18 r 19(1) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) (“ROC”).1 It was fixed and heard together with a similar application taken out by the second defendant to strike out the action against him (Summons No 5859 of 2019),2 but that latter application was withdrawn in the course of the hearing.3
In Suit 1274, the plaintiff has brought proceedings against the first to ninth defendants for the torts of lawful means conspiracy and unlawful means conspiracy, and against the first and second defendants for the tort of intimidation.4 In its striking out application, the first defendant’s main contention, in gist, is that the plaintiff’s claims should be struck out because they have already been dealt with in the arbitration brought by the plaintiff (see [16] below), and the claims in this suit are thus barred by the principles of
The striking out application which is the subject of the present judgment should not be seen in isolation, but in its proper context. It is the latest salvo in a long-running dispute arising from a building and construction project where the plaintiff was appointed and later terminated as the main contractor.5 As will be outlined below, the longstanding nature of this dispute between the plaintiff on the one hand and the project developer and consultants on the other, has engendered an entire series of pronouncements and findings by,
Given the number of defendants, it will be useful to first set out the
The plaintiff, CKR Contract Services Pte Ltd, was appointed as the main contractor for a condominium project known as the Seletar Park Residences (“the Project”) from 15 January 2013. Its appointment as the main contractor was terminated on 24 October 2014.7
The first defendant, Asplenium Land Pte Ltd, was the developer for the Project, and is a subsidiary of Tuan Sing Holdings Pte Ltd.8 The first defendant had been incorporated for the development of the Project. The second defendant, Sia Wee Long (“Mr Sia”), was an employee of Tuan Sing Holdings Pte Ltd and was, at the material time, the project manager of the Project.
The third defendant, SCDA Architects Pte Ltd, was the architectural firm engaged as the Project’s architects.9 At the material time, the fourth and fifth defendants were employees of the third defendant. The fourth defendant, who remains employed by the third defendant, was the architect named as the Qualified Person for the Project, and the fifth defendant also worked on the Project as an architect. In the course of this judgment, for convenience, I will refer to the third to fifth defendants as “the architects”.
The sixth defendant, Rich-Link Construction Pte Ltd, was engaged by the first defendant to replace the plaintiff as the main contractor for the Project after the first defendant had terminated the plaintiff’s services in October 2014.10
The seventh defendant, Rider Levett Bucknall LLP, was the firm of quantity surveyors engaged for the Project.11 The eighth defendant, RLB Consultancy Pte Ltd, is a related company of the seventh defendant. The ninth defendant, Lam Chye Shing, is an employee of the seventh defendant and was the designated Quantity Surveyor for the Project. The seventh, eighth, and ninth defendants were involved in the replacement tender process through which the sixth defendant was engaged to replace the plaintiff as main contractor for the Project. For context, the seventh defendant is in the business of providing property and construction consultancy services, while the eighth defendant is in the business of providing consultancy and project management services in the construction industry. The seventh and eighth defendants have the same registered address, and the nine registered partners of the seventh defendant are also directors and shareholders of the eighth defendant.
Background to the disputesA brief chronology of the relevant facts is as follows.
On 15 January 2013, the plaintiff and first defendant entered into a contract (“the Contract”) concerning the development of the Project.12 The first defendant had engaged the plaintiff as the main contractor to carry out building and construction works for the Project. Three points bear note in relation to the Contract:
On 24 October 2014, the plaintiff was terminated as main contractor of the Project by the first defendant pursuant to a Notice of Termination issued that very day.16 The Notice of Termination was issued on the basis of two Termination Certificates issued by the third defendant and signed by the fourth defendant.17 The first of these certificates (“Certificate No. 260”) was issued on the basis that the plaintiff had failed to proceed with the Project with due diligence and expedition for one month even after the third defendant had issued it a notice to do so (“Notice 260”) pursuant to cl 32(3)(d) of the SIA Conditions on 11 September 2014. The other Termination Certificate (“Certificate No. 262”) proceeded on the basis that the plaintiff had failed to comply with various architect’s directions (“ADs”) issued by the architects within one month after the third defendant had issued it a notice to do so (“Notice 262”) pursuant to cl 32(3)(h) of the SIA Conditions on 11 September 2014. For completeness, I note that two other written notices pursuant to cll 32(3)(e) and 32(3)(h) respectively of the SIA Conditions, Notice 261 and Notice 265, had been issued by the third defendant. However, these two other written notices were not relied upon by the third defendant as the bases for the issuance of Termination Certificates.18 I shall refer to Notices 260, 261, 262 and 265 collectively as “the Notices”.
For ease of reference, cll 32(3)(d) and 32(3)(h) of the SIA Conditions, pursuant to which Notices 260 and 262, and subsequently Termination Certificates No. 260 and 262 respectively were issued, are set out below:
[…]
[…]
[…]
Following the plaintiff’s termination in October 2014, a replacement tender exercise was held and a new contractor, the sixth defendant, was appointed to complete the Project.19
On 4 November 2014, consequent to the termination of the Contract, the first defendant made a call on the performance bond for the full sum. While the call amount was subsequently reduced by the first defendant to around S$7.7 million, a second call was made on the performance bond for the remaining balance of approximately S$1.1 million about a year later, after the completion of the Project.20
On 10 November 2014, the plaintiff commenced arbitral proceedings (“the Arbitration”) against the first defendant pursuant to the parties’ arbitration agreement in cl 37 of the SIA Conditions.21 The arbitration clause provided that any dispute between the parties arising out of the Contract was to be “referred to the arbitration and final decision of a person to be agreed by the parties”. The parties agreed to appoint Mr Chow Kok Fong (the “tribunal” or “arbitrator”) as the sole arbitrator.22 The Arbitration was bifurcated into two phases – a liability phase and a quantum phase.23 The liability phase of the Arbitration ran from 10 November 2014 to 14 February 2018, and two awards were issued in this regard.
The first of these two awards, Partial Award 1, was dated 11 October 2017. It extensively set out the tribunal’s findings on liability on the matters in dispute and ran to 757 pages. The arbitrator noted in the award that it is “common ground that the central issue in the arbitration is whether [the first defendant] validly terminated the contract when it issued its Notice of Termination on 24 October 2014. [The plaintiff] alleges that [the first defendant] had wrongfully terminated the Contract as it had no valid grounds to do so, while [the first defendant] contends that it was entitled and had validly done so”.24 In the result, the arbitrator found substantially for the first defendant and decided that the first defendant had validly terminated the Contract.25 The second award, Partial Award 2, was dated 14 February 2018, and awarded costs to the first defendant for the liability phase against the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Miao Weiguo v Tendcare Medical Group Holdings Pte Ltd
...[2009] 3 SLR(R) 452; [2009] 3 SLR 452 (refd) Browne v Dunne (1893) 6 R 67 (refd) CKR Contract Services Pte Ltd v Asplenium Land Pte Ltd [2020] 5 SLR 665 (refd) Compañia De Navegación Palomar, SA v Koutsos, Isabel Brenda [2020] SGHC 59 (refd) Family Food Court v Seah Boon Lock [2008] 4 SLR(R......
-
Miao Weiguo v Tendcare Medical Group Holdings Pte Ltd (formerly known as Tian Jian Hua Xia Medical Group Holdings Pte Ltd) (in judicial management) and another
...double recovery (see, for example, the High Court decision of CKR Contract Services Pte Ltd v Asplenium Land Pte Ltd and others [2020] 5 SLR 665 at [112]). Where a further action would result in double recovery, it may be characterised as a collateral attack on a prior settlement agreement ......
-
Jasmin Nisban v Chan Boon Siang and others
...on these grounds.821 The requirements of these two subspecies of the res judicata doctrine were recently set out in the High Court decision of CKR Contract Services Pte Ltd v Asplenium Land Pte Ltd and others [2020] 5 SLR 665 (“CKR”) at [43] to [44] as follows: there must be a final and con......
-
Cjy v Cjz
...(watching brief). Case(s) referred to AAY v AAZ [2011] 1 SLR 1093 (folld) CKR Contract Services Pte Ltd v Asplenium Land Pte Ltd [2020] 5 SLR 665 (folld) Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck [2007] 1 SLR(R) 453; [2007] 1 SLR 453 (folld) John Forster Emmott v Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd [2008] 2 All......
-
Conflict of Laws
...SLR 1248 at [71] and [75]–[76]. 430 See para 12.225 above. 431 See discussion of CKR Contract Services Pte Ltd v Asplenium Land Pte Ltd [2020] 5 SLR 665 in (2020) 21 SAL Ann Rev 314 at 393–402, paras 12.216–12.225. 432 Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp v Merck KGaA [2021] 1 SLR 1102 at [3]–[4]. 433 ......
-
Conflict of Laws
... [2020] 2 SLR 1061 at [26]. 443 Shanghai Turbo Enterprises Ltd v Liu Ming [2019] 1 SLR 779 at [107], per Judith Prakash JA. 444 [2020] 5 SLR 665. 445 CKR Contract Services Pte Ltd v Asplenium Land Pte Ltd [2020] 5 SLR 665 at [1]. 446 CKR Contract Services Pte Ltd v Asplenium Land P......