Surge Electrical Engineering Pte Ltd v Powertec Engineers Pte Ltd

CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
JudgeLai Siu Chiu J
Judgment Date25 November 2002
Neutral Citation[2002] SGHC 280
Citation[2002] SGHC 280
Published date20 March 2013
Plaintiff CounselGoh Wing Sun (W S Goh & Co)
Defendant CounselChan Hian Young (Allen & Gledhill)



The background

1. The defendants applied by Summons in Chambers No. 3363 of 2002 (the application) for Further and Better Particulars to be furnished by the plaintiffs on certain paragraphs of the statement of claim. They succeeded partly in the court below. The defendants appealed against the decision of the learned Assistant Registrar in Registrars' Appeal No. 239 of 2002 (the Appeal) refusing to order certain other Particulars to be furnished by the plaintiffs.

2. The Appeal came up for hearing before me and I allowed it in part. As the defendants have now appealed against my decision (in Civil Appeal No. 117 of 2002), I set out herewith my reasons.

The claim

3. The plaintiffs' claim against the defendants was for the balance sum of $1.468m due for supply and installation of an electrical system for a construction project at Tuas View, called the Wyeth Nutritional Facility (the project) by the defendants. The defendants subcontracted the work for supply and installation of the electrical system to the plaintiffs (from the owners/developers of the project Jacob-Lend Lease Pte Ltd), at a sum of $2.77m.

4. After the writ of summons had been served on them, the defendants' solicitors wrote to the plaintiffs' solicitors for Further and Better Particulars of the statement of claim. When their request was rejected, the defendants' solicitors made the application.

5. The court below had refused to order the plaintiffs to furnish the following Particulars of the statement of claim:-

Under para 2

By a purchase order dated 6 April 2000 the defendants awarded to the plaintiffs the electrical installation of the aforesaid project. The contract price is $2,777,910 (inclusive of the 3% GST). The plaintiffs have also undertaken additional/variation work in respect of the aforesaid project as instructed by the defendants and or M/s Jacob-Lend Lease their agents and or servants. The aggregate sum of the contract price, the additional/variation work and increased preliminaries and wages amounted to S$5,113,133.53 (inclusive of the 3% GST).

Please state:

(e) Whether the instructions for each additional/variation work was oral or written.

(i) If oral state the name of the person by whom each instruction was given, the date on which each instruction was given, and the name of the person to whom each instruction was given.

(ii) If written, please identify the document in which each instruction was given.

Under para 4

The plaintiffs have made progress claims for the value of the services rendered and the labour and materials supplied and the plaintiffs have received partial payment in the aggregate sum of $3,644,981.78 (inclusive of the 3% GST).


Contract price (inclusive of the 3% GST)


Add: Additional/variation work (inclusive of the 3% GST)


Add: Increased Preliminaries and Wages (inclusive of the 3% GST)

$ 579,100.00



Less: Payments


Balance due and owing to the plaintiffs


Please state:-

(a) In relation to the progress claims:-

(v) Whether each progress claim was written or oral. If written, identify the document in which the progress claim was made. If oral, state the name of the person who made the progress claim and the name of the person to whom the progress claim was made.

(ix) The original tax invoice in relation to each progress claim, as required by Clause 10.5.2 of the sub-subcontract.

6. At the hearing before me, I ordered the plaintiffs to render the Further and Better Particulars requested of:

(i) para 2 of the statement of claim, item (e);

(ii) to furnish a breakdown of $1,756,123.53 for the additions/variations claimed under para 4 of the statement of claim and;

(iii) to furnish a breakdown for the figure of $579,100/- in para 4 for Increased Preliminaries and Wages.

The defendants have appealed against my refusal to order the Particulars they had requested in items (v) and (ix), under para 4 of the statement of claim.

The arguments

7. Counsel for the defendants submitted that it was no answer to the defendants' request for the plaintiffs to say that the Particulars requested were within the defendants' knowledge. He said that the defendants are entitled to know the case the plaintiffs are making against them and that the latter should be pinned down to a definite story; I did not disagree with this submission. Indeed, I had rejected the argument of counsel for the plaintiffs that the Particulars...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Singapore Airlines Ltd v CSDS Aircraft Sales & Leasing Inc
    • Singapore
    • International Commercial Court (Singapore)
    • 16 Julio 2020 which the communications took place. The same point is made in Surge Electrical Engineering Pte Ltd v Powertec Engineers Pte Ltd [2002] SGHC 280 and in Singapore Civil Procedure 2020 at para 18/12/51 that it matters not if a party is, by reason of the order to produce such required parti......
  • Arovin Ltd and another v Hadiran Sridjaja
    • Singapore
    • International Commercial Court (Singapore)
    • 12 Noviembre 2018 a matter of evidence of which particulars will not be ordered.’ (In the matter of Surge Electrical Engineering and Powertec Engineers [2002] SGHC 280). As stated in Singapore Civil Procedure 2018 (Foo Chee Hock editor-in-chief) (Sweet & Maxwell, 2018) (“Singapore Civil Procedure 2018”) a......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT