Prompt Engineering Consultants Pte Ltd v Fair Chem Industries Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Loo Ngan Chor
• Judgment Date: 07 November 2012
• Neutral Citation: [2012] SGDC 441
• Hearing Date: 02 May 2012,16 April 2012,12 October 2012,18 January 2012,07 November 2012,21 February 2012,20 February 2012,17 January 2012,22 February 2012,01 December 2011,02 December 2011
• Citation: [2012] SGDC 441
• Published date: 16 January 2013
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: District Court Suit No. 1983 of 2010R
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ng Thin Wah (M/sTimothy Ong,Lim & Partners)
• Year: 2012

District Judge Loo Ngan Chor: Introduction

I have carefully read parties’ closing and reply submissions. I have also carefully checked them against the record.

Please permit me to provide you with snapshots of the decision that I would be rendering this evening. Should the need arise; I will give my full grounds of decision at a later time.

The plaintiffs are professional consulting engineers. The defendants manufacture and produce chemicals.

The defendants have had their factory at No. 2 Tuas Drive 1 Singapore 638669. They acquired from JTC a new site at No. 3 Tuas Avenue 11 Singapore 639069. They hoped to move their operations to the new site, which, after improvements and refurbishments, would enable them to expand their production capacity.

The defendants engaged the plaintiffs as consultants for their proposed additions and alterations to the new site. The contract of the parties, constituted by the plaintiff’s letter dated 8th May 2008 (6AB3-4), provides for the plaintiff to receive 5% of the total construction cost as their remuneration. The contract expressly provides for the plaintiff to design necessary documents, obtain necessary approvals, supervise the construction to follow and to procure the temporary occupation permit and certificate of statutory completion. The contract also provided for progress payments, with a total of 95% of the total remuneration to be paid “during construction period”.

The project construction was awarded to a company called Merlin Construction Pte Ltd. The construction contract, for a sum of $3,568,786.00, incorporated the Singapore Institute of Architects Articles and Conditions of Building Contract.

The tender having been awarded to Merlin in June 2008 and work having started in late July 2008, the parties’ contract quickly unravelled. The defendants issued stop work instructions to Merlin on 28th November 2008 owing, they said, to defective works they discovered, occasioned by the plaintiffs’ negligence. By 30th June 2009, through the defendant’s former solicitors’ letter, the plaintiffs’ consultancy was terminated by the defendant.

In this suit, the plaintiffs claim for unpaid fees which they billed. These fees, billed by way of seven invoices between 8th October 2008 and 5th June 2009, are pleaded in the amount of $135,323.00. As pointed out in the defendant’s counsel’s letter dated 4th May 2012, the correct amount of the claim should be $121,494.80, which is 5% of the certified payments to Merlin, i.e., sums totalling $3,241,783.00 (“D3”).

The defendants deny that any money is due and owing to the plaintiffs. They have raised a counter-claim which, they plead, would in any case far exceed the plaintiff’s claim. They plead that if I were to find in favour of recovery by the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs’ claimed amount should be set off against their damages caused by the plaintiffs’ negligence.

The defendants’ counter-claim is constituted by two elements ([130, DRS]: first, a sum of $230,062.00 for the wasted costs of an under-designed platform. Secondly, the defendants say that if the project had been completed on time, they would have been able to move into the new site and their existing premises at No. 2 Tuas Drive 1 would...