Galaxy Imperial Pte Ltd v NS Engineering Pte Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judge | Lorraine Ho |
| Judgment Date | 08 December 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] SGDC 334 |
| Court | District Court (Singapore) |
| Docket Number | DC Suit No 2129 of 2015 |
| Year | 2016 |
| Published date | 13 December 2016 |
| Hearing Date | 06 June 2016,29 July 2016,05 August 2016,04 August 2016,28 July 2016 |
| Plaintiff Counsel | Shriniwas Rai and Ravi Arumugam (M/s Wong Alliance LLP) |
| Defendant Counsel | Mohamed Baiross and Abdul Wahab Bin Saul Hamil (M/s I.R.B. Law LLP) |
| Subject Matter | Contract,Services rendered,Payment,Dishonoured cheques,Estoppel,Invoices,Same invoices different payors |
| Citation | [2016] SGDC 334 |
The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant is for the sum of $68,239.70, being services rendered to the Defendant for supplying skilled construction workers to carry out works at the Suntec City Tower site (“the Site”) for the Suntec City Samsung Project (“the Project”). The claim amount was based on 2 invoices amounting to $21,210.20 dated 4 April 2013 and $47,029.50 dated 19 April 2013 respectively issued by the Plaintiff to the Defendant.
The Defendant denies being liable to the Plaintiff because it was not the party who had actually contracted with the Plaintiff for the supply of the Plaintiff’s workers to work at the Site. Additionally, the Defendant denies that it had ever agreed to the terms of the quotation provided to it by the Plaintiff dated 21 March 2013 or the hourly rate of each worker supplied by the Plaintiff.
I heard the trial on 6 June 2016. I now set out the reasons for my decision.
Background Facts The Parties and the ProjectThe Plaintiff is in the business of labour supply of construction workers for general construction works. Mr Vellaisamy Jayaraj (“Mr Jayaraj”) [PW1] is a director of the Plaintiff.
The Defendant is in the business of subcontracting for general construction works. Mr Mani Nareshkumar (“Mr Naresh”) [DW1] is a director of the Defendant.
In respect of the Project, Ginlee Construction Pte Ltd was the main contractor and Hellen Engineering Pte Ltd (“Hellen Engineering”) as well as RKB Construction Pte Ltd (“RKB”) were the subcontractors.
Sometime in or around March 2013, RKB Construction Pte Ltd (“RKB”) engaged the Plaintiff to supply workers to perform demolition works at the Site for the Project. For the purpose of the proceedings before me, RKB was not involved.
The Defendant was in turn engaged by Hellen Engineering as its sub-subcontractor to perform demolition works at the Site on or about 13 March 2013. Hellen Engineering was a sole-proprietorship owned by one Mdm Sundar Raj Mary. Hellen Engineering was subsequently wound up on 22 January 2015.
Hellen Engineering had a related company called Hellen Tech Pte Ltd (“Hellen Tech”). Hellen Tech was owned and managed by Mr Sakoie Sundar Raj (“Mr Sakoie”) [DW2], who is the husband of Mdm Sundar Raj Mary, until 28 February 2015 when the company was sold to someone else. At the material times, Mr Sakoie was also the operations manager of Hellen Engineering.
The Plaintiff’s CaseAccording to the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s site supervisor, one Veerappan Vadivelu (“Veerappan”), had contacted Mr Jayaraj to supply workers to the Defendant for the Project on an urgent basis. This was prior to 16 March 2013. Due to the urgency, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to supply the workers even before a quotation was submitted by the Plaintiff.
As such, the Plaintiff agreed to and started supplying workers to the Defendant at the Site on 16 March 2013. The Plaintiff only submitted its quotation dated 21 March 2013 with the no. GE/QTN/12/1082 (“the Defendant’s Quotation”) to the Defendant via email on 22 March 2013. The price stated was $10.50 per hour for each worker supplied.
On the same day, the Defendant replied via email that it was not agreeable to the proposed rate offered at $10.50 per hour per worker. It instead counter proposed a rate of $9.00 per hour per worker and requested the Plaintiff to amend the quotation. However, the Plaintiff did not reply to this counteroffer or send a revised quotation to the Defendant as per the Defendant’s request. It was Mr Jayaraj’s position that the Plaintiff did not agree to the Defendant’s counteroffer. In the meantime, the Plaintiff continued to supply workers to the Defendant at the Site without incident.
At this point in time, Mr Jayaraj said that he was unaware of Hellen Engineering and the Plaintiff had no business dealings with it.
On 6 April 2013, the Plaintiff sent via email to the Defendant the first invoice dated 4 April 2013 (Invoice No. GPE/INV/2013/2014) amounting to $21,210.20 together with supporting timesheets and timecards for the work done by its workers at the Site during the period of 16 Mach 2013 to 31 March 2013. From the timesheets and timecards submitted, the Plaintiff calculated the total amount based on the rate of $10.50 per hour per worker. For convenience, this will be called “Invoice 1”.
On 20 April 2013, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant via email the second invoice dated 19 April 2013 amounting to $47,029.50 (Invoice No. GPE/INV/2013/1018). This was for the work done by its workers at the Site during the period of 1 April 2013 to 15 April 2013. Again, based on the timesheets and timecards submitted, the Plaintiff calculated the amount based on the rate of $10.50 per hour per worker. For convenience, this will be called “Invoice 2”.
The Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff for any of the invoices issued. Therefore, the Plaintiff pressed the Defendant for payment on 26 April 2013. At the same time that day, the Plaintiff got Mr Naresh to sign and acknowledge on the hardcopies of Invoice 1 and Invoice 2. Mr Jayaraj gave evidence that 2 signed but undated cheques (which was subsequently dated 13 June 2013) with no amounts written on them were then issued by Mr Naresh in favour of the Plaintiff.
At this point, Mr Jayaraj said he did not know that the Defendant was working for Hellen Engineering, which I take it to mean he did not know that the Defendant was a subcontractor of Hellen Engineering since one company cannot be employed by another company.
On 8 May 2013, the Plaintiff sent an email to the Defendant enclosing an invoice dated 4 May 2013 (Invoice No. GPE/INV/2013/1025) amounting to $47, 646.90. This was for work done at the Site from 16 April 2013 to 30 April 2013. This invoice will be called “Hellen 1”.
On 10 May 2013, the Plaintiff sent an email to the Defendant enclosing an invoice dated 14 May 2013 (Invoice No. GPE/INV/2013/1026) amounting to $8,261.40. This was for work done at the Site from 16 April 2013 to 30 April 2013. This invoice will be called “Hellen 2”. In addition, the Plaintiff issued a balance statement of the outstanding amount owed by the Defendant as at 10 May 2013. They included Invoice 1, Invoice 2, Hellen 1 and Hellen 2.
On or about 12 June 2013, the Plaintiff issued a balance statement for the outstanding amount owed by the Defendant to the Plaintiff as at 12 June 2013. There were a total of 6 invoices listed in the said statement and the total sum amounted to $162,782.55. The 6 invoices included Invoice 1, Invoice 2, Hellen 1, Hellen 2 and Invoice No. GPE/INV/2013/1031 amounting to $33,232.50 for the period of 1 May 2013 to 15 May 2013 (“Hellen 3”) and Invoice No. GPE/INV/2013/1038 amounting to $5,402.25 for the period of 15 May 2013 to 31 May 2013 (“Hellen 4”).
Subsequently, it was only on or around 26 June 2013 that the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to meet up with Hellen Engineering as its subcontractor to sort out any issues with regard to payment. It was at this point that Mr Jayaraj said he knew the Defendant was working for Hellen Engineering, i.e. the subcontractor of Hellen Engineering.
It was also at this same meeting that Mr Naresh informed Mr Jayaraj to change all the quotation and invoices from the Defendant’s name to that of Hellen Engineering’s, such that the invoices would be payable by the latter. This was because the Defendant was merely the subcontractor working for Hellen Engineering.
When the Plaintiff had reissued the invoices in the name of Hellen Tech and the quotation in the name of Hellen Engineering as per Mr Sakoie’s request, the Defendant then informed the Plaintiff via email on 30 July 2013 that the former would be cancelling the 2 cheques issued by it earlier. The Plaintiff did not reply to that email but instead sought to bank in the 2 cheques dated 13 June 2013 for the sums of $20,000.00 and $27,029.50 respectively on or about 16 September 2013. However, it was informed by the bank that the payment for them had been stopped by the Defendant.
The Defendant’s CaseThe Defendant did not dispute that it had entered into negotiations with the Plaintiff initially to supply workers to it. However, as the parties could not agree to the daily rate of each worker to be paid, the Defendant argued that there was hence no agreement reached between them.
Moreover, during the same period in or around March 2013, the Defendant discovered that the Plaintiff was separately negotiating with Hellen Engineering to supply workers to the latter at the Site for the Project. Mr Sakoie, who was the operations manager of Hellen Engineering and Director of Hellen Tech at that time, had informed Mr Naresh that Hellen Engineering had decided to engage the Plaintiff to supply workers to it for performing the works at the Site.
As Hellen Engineering had engaged the Defendant as its subcontractor, the Defendant agreed to the arrangement. Besides, as Mr Veerappan was the site supervisor for the Defendant, Mr Veerappan was asked by Hellen Engineering to supervise the Plaintiff’s workers supplied to work at the site.
However, no quotation was executed at that point in time. From the evidence given by Mr Sakoie in court, he said that the daily rate of each worker supplied was agreed with the Plaintiff at $10.50 per hour.
The Defendant further averred that when it first received the Plaintiff’s email dated 6 April 2013 together with Invoice 1 dated 4 April 2013, Mr Naresh had contacted the Plaintiff’s other director, Mr Shanmugam, that he ought to have sent Invoice 1 to Hellen Engineering instead. However, there was no evidence that this had occurred. It was further not stated in Mr Naresh’s AEIC filed in court.
Sometime between 29 April 2013 and 2 May 2013, a site meeting was convened. The Plaintiff was represented by Mr Shanmugam and Mr Jayaraj. The Defendant was represented by...
To continue reading
Request your trial