W Y Steel Construction Pte Ltd v Osko Pte Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lee Seiu Kin J
• Judgment Date: 27 September 2012
• Neutral Citation: [2012] SGHC 194
• Plaintiff Counsel: Henry Heng Gwee Nam, Corinne Taylor Lai Sze Huei and Gina Tan Yiting (Legal Solutions LLC)
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 484 of 2012
• Date: 2012
• Hearing Date: 08 August 2012
• Subject Matter: Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act,setting aside Adjudication Determination
• Published date: 28 September 2012
• Citation: [2012] SGHC 194
• Defendant Counsel: Chelliah Ravindran and Alison Jayaram (Chelliah & Kiang)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Year: 2012

Lee Seiu Kin J:

On 7 May 2012, the adjudicator appointed under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) (“the Act”) ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant the sum of $1,767,069.80 (“the Adjudication Determination”). In this originating summons, the plaintiff applied to set aside the Adjudication Determination. On 8 August 2012, after hearing counsel for the parties, I upheld the Adjudication Determination and ordered the sum of $1,767,069.80 paid into court to be paid out to the defendant on 8 September 2012, if there is no appeal. The plaintiff has filed an appeal on 7 September 2012, which is the last day to file an appeal. As the procedure under the Act was established to ensure that claimants under a construction or supply contract received progress payments in a timely manner, I have therefore expedited my written grounds of decision.

The following is the chronology of events: 12 April 2011: the Singapore Turf Club appointed the plaintiff as the main contractor for alterations and additions to the existing grandstand for the lump sum price of about $6m (“the Project”). 13 September 2011: the plaintiff and defendant entered into a sub-contract (“the Subcontract”), backdated to 12 April 2011, wherein the plaintiff appointed the defendant as its sub-contractor for the Project. The Subcontract was valued at about $3.75m, and covered all works except specialist steel works which the plaintiff retained for itself, and electrical works which was sub-contracted to Sanyo Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd. 12 March 2012: the plaintiff served a letter to the defendant to terminate the Subcontract. 31 March 2012: the completion date of the Project stipulated in the Subcontract. 31 March 2012: the defendant served on the plaintiff payment claim no 10, which stated that it was a payment claim under the Act. 14 April 2012: the deadline under the Act for service of payment response expired. 19 April 2012: the defendant served on the plaintiff a notice of intention to apply for adjudication under the Act. 20 April 2012: the defendant filed with the Singapore Mediation Centre (“SMC”) an adjudication application under the Act. SMC served the adjudication application on the plaintiff. 24 April 2012: the SMC appointed Mr Naresh Mahtani as the adjudicator. 27 April 2012: the deadline under the Act for submission of adjudication response expired. 30 April 2012: the defendant applied by email to adjudicator to proceed with adjudication under the Act. The adjudicator forwarded the email to the parties and proposed an adjudication conference to be held on 2 May 2012. 1 May 2012: the plaintiff sent email to the defendant’s solicitors, the adjudicator and SMC claiming that the adjudication application was only served on them on 25 April 2012 (and not 20 April 2012). The adjudicator sought clarification from SMC and was advised that the adjudication application was served on 20 April 2012. 2 May 2012: the plaintiff attempted to file an adjudication response but was rejected by SMC on the ground that it was filed out of time. 7 May 2012: the adjudicator made the Adjudication Determination, ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendant the sum of $1,767,069.80 within seven days. 16 May 2012: the defendant filed originating summons no 467 of 2012 for leave to enforce the Adjudication Determination as it was not paid by 14 May 2012. 21 May 2012: the plaintiff filed originating summons no 484 of 2012 (“the present OS”) to set aside the Adjudication Determination and applied therein for an interim injunction to restrain the defendant from enforcing the Adjudication Determination until disposal of the present OS. 4 June 2012: the court ordered that the present OS would be treated as an application to set aside the Adjudication Determination.

Before me, the plaintiff set out three grounds for setting aside the Adjudication Determination, as follows: the adjudicator had no jurisdiction to make the order; the adjudicator had contravened the rules of natural...