Hong Huat v Hiap Hong: Implied Duties of Employers Regarding Architect's Certifying Functions under SIA Conditions
Hong Huat Development Co. (Pte) Ltd appealed against part of an arbitrator's award in favor of Hiap Hong & Company Pte Ltd concerning a construction contract for a shopping center. The High Court of Singapore, with Judicial Commissioner Woo Bih Li presiding, considered the implied duties of the employer (Hong Huat) in relation to the certifying functions of the architect under the Singapore Institute of Architects (SIA) Conditions. The court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the arbitrator's award on several claims related to the architect's alleged defaults in issuing certificates.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed in Part
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Written Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding arbitrator's award on implied duties of employers concerning architect's certification under SIA Conditions. Appeal allowed in part.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hong Huat Development Co (Pte) Ltd | Appellant, Respondent | Corporation | Appeal allowed in part | Partial | |
| Hiap Hong & Company Pte Ltd | Respondent, Claimant | Corporation | Award partially set aside | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Woo Bih Li | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Lawrence Teh | Rodyk & Davidson |
| John Chung | Khattar Wong & Partners |
| Sharon Tay | Donaldson & Burkinshaw |
4. Facts
- Hong Huat Development Co. (Pte) Ltd engaged Hiap Hong & Company Pte Ltd to build a shopping centre in 1979.
- The contract incorporated the 1979 Singapore Institute of Architects Standard Conditions.
- Disputes arose between the parties and were referred to arbitration.
- The arbitrator found in favor of Hiap Hong on several claims related to the architect's certification duties.
- Hong Huat appealed against part of the arbitrator's award.
- The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal on the question of the employer's duties regarding the architect's certifying functions.
5. Formal Citations
- Hong Huat Development Co (Pte) Ltd v Hiap Hong & Company Pte Ltd, OM 12/1999, CA 85/1999, [2000] SGHC 131
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Contract signed between Hong Huat Development Co. (Pte) Ltd and Hiap Hong & Company Pte Ltd for construction of a shopping centre. | |
| Arbitrator published his award. | |
| Case Number OM 12/1999 | |
| Case Number CA 85/1999 | |
| Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal to the High Court. | |
| High Court issued judgment. |
7. Legal Issues
- Implied duties of employer regarding architect's certifying functions
- Outcome: The court determined that the employer has a duty not to interfere with the architect's duties and to enable the architect to discharge their duty properly, but is not required to order or tell the architect what to do. The employer is not liable for the architect's default, even if aware of it.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Extent of employer's duty to ensure proper discharge of architect's duties
- Employer's liability for architect's default in issuing certificates
- Requirement of employer's knowledge of architect's default
- Related Cases:
- [1974] AC 727
- (1943) Vol 76 No 4 Lloyds Law Reports 113
- 12 BLR 90
- (1986) 33 BLR 39
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside of arbitrator's award
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Arbitration
- Construction Law
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sutcliffe v Thackrah | House of Lords | Yes | [1974] AC 727 | England and Wales | Cited to discuss the dual functions of an architect and the need for professional skill and independent judgment. |
| The Moorcock | N/A | Yes | 14 P.D. 64 | N/A | Cited for the principle of implying terms in a contract to give the transaction business efficacy. |
| Luxor (Eastbourne), Ltd. V. Cooper | House of Lords | Yes | [1941] A.C. 108 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle of implying terms in a contract based on the presumed intention of the parties. |
| Frederick Leyland & Co Ltd (J Russel & Co) v Compania Panamena Europea Navegacion, Limitada | Court of Appeal | Yes | (1943) Vol 76 No 4 Lloyds Law Reports 113 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the implied obligation of an owner to ensure a certifier carries out their duty properly, and the requirement of knowledge on the part of the owner to render them liable for the certifier's default. Distinguished on its facts. |
| Perini Corporation v Commonwealth of Australia | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | 12 BLR 90 | Australia | Cited regarding the implied obligation of an owner to ensure a certifier carries out their duty properly, and the requirement of knowledge on the part of the owner to render them liable for the certifier's default. Distinguished on its facts. |
| Lubenham Fidelities and Investments Co Ltd v South Pembrokeshire District Council & another | N/A | Yes | (1986) 33 BLR 39 | N/A | Cited regarding the circumstances under which an employer can be held liable for an architect's wrongful deductions in a certificate. Distinguished on its facts. |
| Croudace Ltd v London Borough of Lambeth | N/A | Yes | (1986) 33 BLR 25 | N/A | Cited for the principle that an owner may and should appoint someone else in place of a retired certifier. |
| Minster Trust Ltd v Traps Tractors Ltd | N/A | Yes | (1954) 1 WLR 963 | N/A | Cited for the principle that neither party should interfere with the independence of an arbitrator or certifier. |
| Kempster v Bank of Montreal | N/A | Yes | [1871] 32 Up.Can Q.B. 87 | N/A | Cited for the principle that parties intend to rely on the fairness, skill, and judgment of the surveyor or architect. |
| Hickman & Co v Roberts | House of Lords | Yes | [1913] AC 229 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that an architect should decide on the issue of certificates and amounts without following instructions or orders of the owners. |
| Mackay v Dick | House of Lords | Yes | [1881] 6 App Cas 251 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that each party agrees to do all that is necessary to be done on his part for the carrying out of that thing. |
| A.C. Hatrick (N.Z.) Ltd v Nelson Carlton Construction Co. Ltd. (in liquidation) and others | N/A | Yes | (1964) NZLR 72 | New Zealand | Cited for the principle that the true test of the functions of a certifier must always be found in the intention of the parties. |
| Nelson Carlton Construction Co. (in liquidation) v A C Hatrick (N.Z.) Limited | Court of Appeal | Yes | (1965) NZLR 144 | New Zealand | Cited for the principle that the certificate of the engineer or architect may be reviewed by an arbitrator and the fact that the engineer or architect was nominated by one party, does not make the engineer or architect, as certifier, an agent of the party engaging him. |
| China Construction (South Pacific) Development Co Pte Ltd v Leisure Park (Singapore) Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR 622 | Singapore | Cited to show that if the issuance of the interim certificates was to be conditional upon the contractor submitting detailed progress claims then this must be specifically provided for in the contract. |
| Pacific Associates v Baxter | N/A | Yes | [1990] 1 QB 993 | N/A | Cited for the proposition that a certifier will not be liable in negligence to the contractor. |
| D&F Estates Ltd & Ors v Church Commissions for England & Ors | N/A | Yes | (1989) AC 177 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the English courts are less inclined to find a duty of care for pure economic loss. |
| Murphy v Brentwood District Council | N/A | Yes | (1990) 2 All ER 908 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the English courts are less inclined to find a duty of care for pure economic loss. |
| RSP Architects Planners & Engineers v Ocean Front Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR 113 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a developer does owe a duty of care to a Management Corporation to avoid pure economic loss. |
| RSP Architects Planners & Engineers (Raglan Squire & Partners FE) v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1075 & Anor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR 449 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that architects owe a duty of care to a Management Corporation to avoid pure economic loss. |
| Jackson v Barry Railway Co | N/A | Yes | (1893) 1 Ch 238 | N/A | Cited for the principle that both parties intend to rely on his fairness as well as his skill and judgment as a certifier. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Arbitration Act (Ch 10) s 28 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Architect
- Certifier
- Interim Certificate
- Final Certificate
- Conditions of Building Contract
- Implied Term
- Certifying Function
- Employer's Duty
- SIA Conditions
- Retention Money
15.2 Keywords
- construction contract
- arbitration
- architect
- certification
- implied terms
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Contract Law | 90 |
| Construction Law | 85 |
| Building Contracts | 75 |
| Arbitration | 70 |
16. Subjects
- Construction Dispute
- Arbitration
- Contract Law