Jurong Town Corp v Sembcorp Engineers and Constructors Pte Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chan Seng Onn J
• Judgment Date: 17 April 2009
• Neutral Citation: [2009] SGHC 93
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Year: 2009
• Citation: [2009] SGHC 93
• Plaintiff Counsel: Andre Maniam, Ong Pei Chin and Wong Baochen (Wong Partnership LLP)
• Defendant Counsel: Soh Lip San, Elaine Tay and Tan Yu Inn Shannon (Rajah & Tann LLP)
• Subject Matter: Contract,Breach
• Published date: 12 May 2009

17 April 2009

Chan Seng Onn J

I.	Background Facts
II.	Legal / Factual Issues
	A.	SEC's Obligations
	B.	SEC's Breach and Resultant Damage
	C.	SEC's Defence
	D.	Key Issues
III.	SEC'S Obligations
	A.	Fitness for Purpose
		i.	Whether SEC had an obligation to ensure that the steel stiffeners were fit for their intended purposes
		ii.	The purpose for which the steel stiffeners were intended
			a.	Serviceability
			b.	Expansion of bricks
			c.	Brick walls did not have movement joints
	B.	Equivalence / Design / Construction
		i.	JTC's Position
		ii.	SEC's Defence
IV.	SEC'S Breaches
	A.	Design
		i.	Sections 5.7 and 2.4.2 of BS5950-5 : Deflection
			a.	Deflection limit to be complied with - JTC's position
			b.	Deflection limit to be complied with - SEC's Position
				1.	Vertical Deflection
				2.	Horizontal Deflection
			c.	Compliance of the steel stiffeners with deflection limits
				1.	External Wall in the SS 2000 series
				2.	#03-12 Elevation 1 External Wall
				3.	#03-12 Internal Wall
				4.	Page 335 of Jones’ 1st AEIC
				5.	7m by 10m theoretical wall panel
		ii.	Section 5.6 of BS 5950-5: Lateral Buckling
		iii.	Section 5.9 of BS 5950-5: Effects of Torsion
		iv.	Effects of warping torsion increasing the torsional capacity
		v.	Section 6.2 of BS 5950-5: Flexural Buckling
			a.	Applicability of Section 6.2.2
			b.	Whether the maximum slenderness of the H1-250 and H1-300 exceeded the limit specified in section 6.2.2 of BS 5950-5
			c.	Whether the maximum slenderness for H1-250 and H1-300 would still be non-compliant with code requirements if section 4.2 of BS 5950-5 was applied
	B.	Construction and Workmanship
		i.	Defects observed after stiffeners were exposed
			a.	Incomplete stiffeners
			b.	No stub to connect the steel stiffeners
			c.	Uneven support
			d.	Welding
				1.	Welding between flange and web
				2.	Welding at end connections
				3.	Welding to join two web plates
	C.	Stiffeners were Unfit
		i.	Steel stiffeners caused defects
			a.	How the steel stiffeners caused the defects on site: Dr Ting’s opinion
				1.	Stiffeners prone to excessive deflection under lateral load
					(i)	Wind load was considered
					(ii)	Excessive deflections under wind load
					(iii)	Wind speed
					(iv)	Consequences
				2.	Horizontal steel stiffeners also had the propensity to side-sway
					(i)	Dr Chiew’s test results
				3.	Stiffeners had low torsional capacity and were prone to twisting
					(i)	Was there some rotation / twist / torsion?
					(ii)	Horizontal steel stiffeners had low torsional capacity
				4.	Poor construction of steel stiffeners aggravated the deformation
			b.	How the Steel Stiffeners caused the Defects on Site: Jones' Opinion
				1.	Steel stiffeners would fail due to compressive loads
					(i)	Movement capability rejected by JTC
					(ii)	Wind load was secondary for being a transient load
				2.	Steel stiffeners slender and prone to side-sway
				3.	Steel stiffeners weak under compression
			c.	Steel Stiffeners would have failed with vertical movement of 2.7 mm
				1.	Vertical steel stiffeners would have failed with vertical movement of 1.7 mm
				2.	Horizontal steel stiffeners would have failed with vertical movement of 2.7 mm
					(i)	Question of whether steel stiffeners were fit for purpose
				3.	Some accommodation of the vertical movement of 2.7 mm
					(i)	Capacity of brick wall was sufficient
						(a).	Axial stress limit was reduced by Jones
						(b).	Brickwork had greater capacity than that calculated by Jones
							(1)	Slenderness ratio of the brick wall was exceeded
								(I)	Effective thickness of the brick wall
								(II)	Effective height of the brick wall
								(III)	Capacity reduction factor should be increased
								(IV)	Conclusion
		ii.	Other alleged causes for the defects
			a.	Were the defects caused by the absence of movement joints?
				1.	If movement joints were provided, defects in the vertical steel stiffeners would still; have occurred
				2.	If r.c. had been used, no defects would have been observed
			b.	Defects were not caused by slenderness of the brick walls (re paragraph 18(b) of the Defence)
			c.	Defects were not caused by fair wear and tear and/or lack of maintenance of the brick walls; (re paragraph 18(c) of the Defence)
			d.	Defects were not caused by weakness in the building structure
				1.	Alleged rotational effect of building structure
				2.	Horizontal cracks in columns not indications of structural inadequacy
				3.	Alleged “soft column”
	D.	R.c. Stiffeners Better Than Steel
		i.	No fully developed r.c. design
			a.	JTC would have constructed on basis of a fully-developed r.c. stiffener design
				1.	No design requirements for r.c. given
					(i)	JTC intended end conditions of r.c. stiffeners to be fixed
			b.	Sketches were not meant for use in brick walls generally
		ii.	Steel vs r.c.
			a.	R.c. stiffeners would perform better than steel stiffeners under lateral load
				1.	Composite analysis of deflection
				2.	End conditions of the stiffeners
					(i)	Experts agreed that steel stiffeners had pinned end conditions
					(ii)	Dispute as to end conditions of r.c. stiffeners
					(iii)	Jones disagreed that r.c. end conditions would be fixed-fixed
					(iv)	Sketch of r.c. stiffeners were not only buildable, but also code-compliant
			b.	R.c. would perform better than steel under compression/axial load (packing case)
			c.	R.c. better than steel in the characteristics set out in Tables 1 to 5 of D-29
				1.	Tables 1 and 2, page 21, D-29
					(i)	Discussion on cracking
					(ii)	Under lateral load
					(iii)	Under vertical load
				2.	Table 3, page 22, D-29
			d.	R.c. better than steel as it would not have twisted / side-swayed
			e.	R.c. structure would attract less load under creep and shrinkage
		iii.	What if r.c.?
			a.	R.c. would deflect less than steel under lateral load
			b.	R.c. would be fine under compression
			c.	With r.c., rectification works would have been simpler and cheaper
			d.	Defects in question would not have arisen if r.c. stiffeners were not substituted with steel stiffeners
		iv.	Allegation of defects at locations even with r.c. stiffeners
			a.	At SS1000 units
			b.	At SS2000 units
			c.	Plaster cracks at staircases due to differential loading
	E.	Conclusion

I. Background Facts

1 The plaintiff ("JTC") is the developer and owner of Woodlands Spectrum I ("Development"), which comprises some 17 blocks of 9-storey stack-up factories. The defendant ("SEC") was the main contractor for the Development under a contract dated 21 September 1998 ("Contract").

2 The Contract originally provided for the use of reinforced concrete ("r.c.") lintels/stiffeners for the brick walls in the Development. In the course of the Contract, SEC proposed to substitute steel lintels/stiffeners for r.c. lintels/stiffeners. JTC was amenable to that proposal. The term "stiffeners" is used in this judgment to refer generally to the lintels/stiffeners, which are not structural elements but fulfil the function of supporting and strengthening the walls. Stiffeners can be both horizontal and vertical. Lintels are horizontal beams built into the wall at the top of openings. Stiffeners can also be "lintels".

3 SEC engaged Dyntek Pte Ltd ("Dyntek") as its sub-contractor to design and construct the steel stiffeners. As between JTC and SEC, the design of the steel stiffeners was SEC's responsibility. The design was undertaken by Dyntek and its engineering consultants WP Brown. Mr Gary Wyatt (“Wyatt”) of WP Brown, a Professional Engineer ("PE"), endorsed the design.

4 The Development was substantially completed in or around March 2000, but defects were observed thereafter at certain brick wall locations.

5 JTC said that these defects were caused by or attributable to the design and construction of the steel stiffeners. JTC therefore claimed damages, a declaration as to indemnification for future defects, interest and costs. The loss and damage suffered by JTC included the cost of rectification works.

6 By a direction made on 27 April 2007, the proceedings were bifurcated. Liability was to be determined first, and issues of quantum deferred to a later stage.

II. Legal / Factual Issues

A. SEC's Obligations

7 The obligations of a contractor who undertakes both the design and construction of particular works are well settled:

i. Hudson's Building and Engineering Contracts, at paragraph 4.066: A contractor undertaking to do work and supply materials impliedly undertakes…that both the workmanship and materials will be reasonably fit for the purpose for which they are required, unless the circumstances of the...