SP Chua Pte Ltd v Lee Kim Tah (Pte) Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Judge: Amarjeet Singh JC
• Judgment Date: 10 May 1993
• Neutral Citation: [1993] SGHC 104
• Citation: [1993] SGHC 104
• Date: 10 May 1993
• Plaintiff Counsel: Andre Yeap (Allen & Gledhill)
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: Ravintheran Krishnasamy (Ching & Co)
• Docket Number: Suit No 1986 of 1991
• Subject Matter: Defective workmanship and materials,Arbitration,Stay of court proceedings,Claim for work done and materials supplied,Further and better particulars,off,Civil Procedure,Request for extension of time to file defence and counterclaim,Whether this amounts to,Nominated sub-contractors,counsel,Request for further and better particulars,Right to ask for more particulars when particulars of plaintiffs,taking a step in the proceedings,s 7 Arbitration Act (Cap 10),Pleadings,Variation,Set,Building and construction contracts,claim sketchy,Traditional type of contracts,Request by defendants,Whether dispute should be referred to arbitration,Whether subsequent variation a dispute in connection with sub-contract,Waterproofing works,Request made by letter cannot be equated with an application to court for further particulars,Building and Construction Law,so as to abandon claim in arbitration,Request not a step in legal proceedings,O 18 r 12(6) Rule of the Supreme Court

The defendants, a construction company, entered into a contract dated 6 February 1986 with the Singapore Institute of Standards and Industrial Research (`SISIR`) to put up a building known as `SISIR Building`. The defendants later engaged the plaintiffs as a nominated sub-contractor to carry out waterproofing works in respect of the roofing of the said building under a sub-contract (`the sub-contract`) dated on or about 4 September 1986.

In the midst of executing their works, the plaintiffs ran into financial difficulty. They then entered into an oral arrangement with the defendants which was confirmed in writing by the plaintiffs whereby the defendants would undertake the purchase of material or payment of labour on the defendants` account. Each time the plaintiffs requested the defendants to purchase building materials for them, they wrote to the defendants confirming at the same time that the costs of such purchases could be deducted from progress payments due to them.

When the plaintiffs brought an action to recover the balance of a sum of $102,368.65 for work done and materials supplied by the plaintiffs under the sub-contract in respect of the waterproofing works between the end of 1986 and beginning of 1988, the defendants refused to pay the balance due contending that they had a good defence to the action in that:

(i) the plaintiffs performed defective waterproofing works and the defendants were entitled to make such claims by way of deductions or set-offs as are necessary to defray the defendants` costs incurred in carrying out rectification works;

(ii) the defendants were further entitled to make deductions and claim a set-off in respect of the cost of supply of certain material on the plaintiffs` behalf and such claims in set-offs exceeded the plaintiffs` claim.

After entering an appearance in the proceedings against them, the defendants requested from the plaintiffs an extension of time to file a defence and counterclaim and when time was granted followed up instead with a request for further and better particulars by way of a letter which was served on the plaintiffs and filed in court. The plaintiffs responded by filing and serving the further and better particulars. Thereafter the defendants took out an application for an order that all further proceedings in this action be stayed pursuant to s 7 of the Arbitration Act (Cap 10), the plaintiffs and the defendants having under the sub-contract agreed to refer to arbitration the matters in respect of which the action was brought by the plaintiffs.

The learned assistant registrar dismissed the defendants` application with costs with the result that the defendants filed an appeal against that decision. I allowed the appeal and stayed the proceedings in the suit and fixed the defendants` costs, the parties not objecting to the same.

Two issues were canvassed before me:

(1) whether the dispute falls within the arbitration clause;

(2) if so, whether the defendants had taken `a step` in the proceedings pursuant to s 7 of the Arbitration Act by requesting an extension of time to file their defence and counterclaim and/or by the request for further and better particulars and had thereby elected to abandon their right to stay the proceedings in...