Resource Piling Pte Ltd v Geospecs Pte Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Quentin Loh J
• Judgment Date: 05 November 2013
• Neutral Citation: [2013] SGHC 231
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Suit No 343 of 2011
• Published date: 18 December 2013
• Year: 2013
• Hearing Date: 03 September 2012,31 August 2012,27 June 2012,27 August 2012,25 June 2012,30 August 2012,28 June 2012,06 November 2012,28 August 2012,26 June 2012,29 August 2012
• Plaintiff Counsel: Leo Cheng Suan and Teh Ee-von (Infinitus Law Corporation)
• Defendant Counsel: Thomas Tan and Lai Kwan Wei (Haridass Ho & Partners)
• Subject Matter: Tort,Negligence
• Citation: [2013] SGHC 231

Quentin Loh J:

The plaintiff, Resource Piling Pte Ltd (“Resource Piling”), carries on the business of a piling contractor and also conducts related engineering works. The defendant, Geospecs Pte Ltd (“Geospecs”), is a company which specialises in soil investigation works, slope stabilisation, laboratory testing and related works. Resource Piling is suing Geospecs in tort, alleging that Geospecs had negligently carried out soil investigation works and had produced inaccurate borehole logs which Resource Piling relied upon to tender for a piling contract.

Background facts to the dispute The soil investigation contract

HH Properties Pte Ltd (“the Developer”), wanted to develop two hotel blocks of 15 and 18-storeys, a 13-storey office block and basement car parks (“the Project”) on a site between Balestier Road and Ah Hood Road, Lot 09941T Mukim 17 (“the Site”). The Developer engaged Longrove & Associates (“Longrove”) as its consultant civil structural engineer and Longrove required the usual soil information and data to design the foundations. The Developer, through Longrove, called for tenders for the soil investigation. On 15 June 2009, Geospecs submitted a tender to carry out the required soil investigations works at the Site. On 7 July 2009, Longrove – on behalf of the Developer – awarded the soil investigation contract to Geospecs for the sum of $20,500 excluding GST and rock coring (“the Soil Investigation Contract”).

The site was divided into two plots by a reserve along which the Mass Rapid Transit (“MRT”) line between Novena and Toa Payoh stations ran. The larger polygonal plot lay to the West of the reserve (“the Western Plot”) whilst the smaller polygonal plot lay to the East (“the Eastern Plot”). Geospecs conducted a field exploration programme from 20 August 2009 to 23 September 2009 and drilled a total of 11 boreholes on the Site, BH-1 to BH-11. On the Western Plot, BH-1 and BH-2 were to the west with BH-1 to the north of BH-2. BH-3 and BH-4 were in the centre, with BH-3 to the north of BH-4. BH-5, BH-6 and BH-7 were drilled in a line along the eastern edge with BH-5 to the north and BH-7 to the south. On the smaller Eastern Plot, BH-8 and BH-9 were on the western side with BH-8 to the north of BH-9, and on the eastern side, BH-10 was to the north of BH-11.

On 29 September 2009, Geospecs submitted its site investigation report (“the Report”) – which included borehole logs for the 11 boreholes (“the Geospecs Logs”) and the usual soil test data and analyses – to Longrove. The Geospecs Logs indicated that rock was only encountered in two of the boreholes, BH-5 and BH-6 (which were at the North-eastern corner of the Western plot), at depths of 18.00m and 18.70m respectively.

The Piling Contract

On 5 October 2009, Resource Piling received a letter from Longrove inviting tenders for the piling work which called for bored piles ranging from 600mm to 1200mm in diameter. The tender documents issued by Longrove (“the Tender Documents”) contained the following general specifications (“the General Specifications”):¹

GENERAL SPECIFICATION ...

1.6 Site Investigation Report

An extract of the Soil Investigation Report is enclosed in the Appendix for information.

The Contractor should note that he has to satisfy himself as to the actual type of strata, geotechnical nature of the underlying stratum and ground conditions to be encountered during the works. It is to be at the risk of the Contractor if difficult ground conditions are actually encountered on the site.

If a Contractor wishes to perform investigation, which may involve excavation, sounding, or boring before submitting his tender he may do so at his own expense and arrangement could be made with the Engineer.

...

1.10 Obstructions

An obstruction is defined as material the excavation of which requires additional effort. Upon encountering an obstruction, the Contractor shall immediately inform the Engineer and shall agree with the Engineer the method to be employed in removing the obstruction.

...

No claim for additional cost or time shall be allowed or excavation through obstructions and difficult ground conditions no matter how adverse or for the removal of boulders.

The Tender Documents also contained the following specifications relating to the bored piles (“the Bored Pile Specifications”):²

SPECIFICATION FOR CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE BORED PILES ...

1.2 Site Conditions

1.2.1 The Contractor shall be deemed to have inspected the site and satisfied himself with regard to access, site conditions, existing buildings and structures.

1.2.2 The Contractor shall satisfy himself regarding subsoil conditions and the underground water table. 1.2.3 The soil report included in this contract is for the reference of the Contractor only. Neither the Consultants nor the Client accept responsibility for its accuracy or implications, if actual soil conditions are found to be different during progress of works.

No claims for extra cost or time shall be entertained on these grounds.

1.2.4 The Contractor may at his own cost and with the written approval of the Engineer, conduct additional soil tests if he so desires.

...

4.2 Boring

...

4.2.4 Rates for boring shall be based on whatever ground conditions are found. No extra cost or time shall be allowed for boring through more difficult soil conditions than those envisaged by the Contractor.

...

The Geospecs Logs were included in the appendix to the Tender Documents but the full Report including the soil test data and analyses were not included. Resource Piling allegedly relied on the Geospecs Logs to calculate the tender price and submitted its tender to the Developer on 21 October 2009, the closing date for the tender, which was about 16 days after the date of the invitation to tender.

Resource Piling was successful and the Developer awarded the piling contract to Resource Piling for the sum of $3,608,488.41 (“the Piling Contract”) on 24 December 2009. The contract price was calculated according to per metre rates based on the provisional lengths of the bored piles. The material terms of the Piling Contract are set out below as follows:³

1. CONTRACT SUM ...

The above price/unit rate shall include:

...

o) Any coring/chiselling/socketing into rock or use of special tools/equipments;

...

You agree that the Contract Sum shall cover your obligations under the Contract and all works and expenditure necessary to carry out and bring the Works to completion. This shall include all ancillary works or processes which are indispensably necessary and may continently become necessary to achieve completion whether described or otherwise in the face of practical difficulties or for other technical reasons.

..

2. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS The following letters and documents shall constitute integral parts of the Contract:-

...

c) M/S Longrove’s Specifications ref. GS/1 to GS/11, BP/1 to BP/18 and Appendix for the Bore hole Log.

e) This letter. The terms and conditions stipulated in this letter shall prevail in the event of any inconsistency between the terms and conditions stated in the earlier letters and documents identified above.

...

7. SCOPE OF WORKS ...

You shall deem to have inspected and examined the site and acquaint yourself as to the form and nature of the site condition. No claim whatsoever made by you on ground of want of knowledge of any of the aforesaid will be entertained.

...

11. CONTRACTOR’S OBLIGATION ...

d) The Contractor shall be deemed to have inspected and examined the Site and its surroundings and to have satisfied himself before submitting the tender as to the nature of the ground and sub-soil and the form and nature of the Site and in general to have obtained for himself all necessary information as to risks, contingencies and all other circumstances influencing the tender.

16. WARRANTIES ...

b) No warranty or representation as to the accuracy and/or quantities and/or information contained in any plans and/or drawings provided to the Contractor is made by the Employer nor may be implied against the Employer. The Contractor shall check the accuracy of all plans and/or drawings and to satisfy himself accordingly. In the event that there are any inaccuracies and/or discrepancies in the drawings and/or plans then it shall be the Contractor’s responsibility to bring such matters to the attention of the Employer. In so far as the Contractor intends to make any claims or to seek any extension of time as a result of any inaccuracy and/or discrepancy in the drawings and/or it plans then the Contractor shall be required to comply with the relevant provisions in the Contract relating to claims for additional payment and for the application for and the grant of an extension of time.

Clause 2(c) of the Piling Contract incorporated both the General Specifications and Bored Pile Specifications as terms of the Piling Contract. The piling construction

Sometime in January 2010, prior to the commencement of the piling works and in accordance with the Building and Construction Authority’s (“BCA”) requirements, Resource Piling drilled and constructed an ultimate test pile (“the UTP”). The purpose of the UTP was to verify the pile design submitted by the project engineer to the BCA as the UTP would be constructed and tested to at least 2.5 times of the working load under the pile design. Resource Piling drilled the UTP somewhere near the vertical midpoint between BH-10 and BH-11, and discovered that rock was encountered from 19.00m onwards.

Upon the UTP performing satisfactorily, Resource Piling proceeded to carry out the piling works, and claimed to have encountered ground conditions that were materially different from the conditions indicated in the Geospecs Logs. Resource Piling subsequently engaged Soil & Foundation Pte Ltd (“S & F”) sometime around March or April 2010 to conduct additional...