Yee Kit Hong, Liquidator of Hup Seng Bee Construction Pte Ltd v G and W Ready Mix Pte Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Valerie Thean Pik Yuen
• Judgment Date: 04 May 2004
• Neutral Citation: [2004] SGDC 111
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 29 November 2005
• Year: 2004
• Plaintiff Counsel: Cheong Kok Fu (Guofu)
• Defendant Counsel: Richard Lai (Lai Mun Onn and Co)
• Citation: [2004] SGDC 111

4 May 2004

District Judge Valerie Thean:

1. In this case, summary judgement was ordered against the defendants by the deputy registrar at first instance. I dismissed the appeal from the deputy registrar's decision, and the defendants have appealed therefrom.

Facts

2. The plaintiff is the liquidator of Hup Seng Bee Construction Pte Ltd ('HSB'). The defendants are a mixer and supplier of materials for contractors.

3. At the material time, HSB was a Housing & Development Board ('HDB') main contractor. Under the standard terms of HSB's contract with HDB, the main contractor was to purchase raw materials, namely sand, aggregate (or stones) and cement from HDB at fixed prices for the construction work for the HDB at the awarded sites.

4. The defendants were HSB's subcontractors. By two contracts evidenced in writing dated 13 July 2000 and 17 October 2001, the defendants agreed to supply mixed materials to HSB at the HDB sites at Kallang Whampoa and Toa Payoh respectively. HSB was to purchase raw materials from the HDB at HDB prices and supply them to the defendants. The defendants would supply mixed materials to HSB upon request from time to time. Where waterproofing mixed materials were required, the defendants would purchase a waterproofing admixture and charge HSB an additional $8 per metric ton of mixed material supplied.

5. In October 2002, the arrangement was terminated by HSB. Subsequently, HSB was wound up on 24 February 2003, and the plaintiff was appointed its liquidator. The plaintiff claimed $145,743.03 on the basis of a letter from the defendants dated 8 May 2003.

Whether there is a viable defence

Pleadings

6. In their Defence and Counterclaim, filed on 24 November 2003, the defendants contended that they were claiming for damages against HSB for breach of contract, amounting to $179,037.86, and that this sum was to be set off against the claimed sum. The defendants had filed their proof of debt for the balance sum of $33,293.93. In this pleading, no particulars of breach of contract by the plaintiffs were given.

7. An Amended Defence and Counterclaim was filed on 15 December 2003, and listed four breaches:

(i) Compensation on the price differential between HDB materials and the market price;

(ii) Loss of profits;

(iii) Storage costs; and

(iv) Indemnity cost from admixture supplier.

8. There were no details as to how these claims arose. Further and Better Particulars were filed on 9 January 2004, but these were rather confused.

Affidavits

9. The defendants' first affidavit, their affidavit to show cause filed by Lee Cheng Kit, their Sales Manager, on 23 December 2003, did not contain any particulars of the breaches of contract by HSB. Indeed, its defectiveness was conceded by defence counsel at the hearing below. Perhaps for that reason, the defendants filed a second affidavit, again by Lee Cheng Kit, on 12 February 2004, after the notice of appeal was filed on 29 January 2004. However, this affidavit, too, only furnished vague details of the 4 items claimed by their Amended Defence and Counterclaim. A large part of the affidavit referred to pleadings such as the Amended Defence and Counterclaim and the Further and Better Particulars.

The four breaches alleged

10. The first breach alleged relates to a claim arising from a price differential between HDB prices and market prices. No specific price differential was alleged, no quantification was suggested. A perusal of the...