Soil-Build v Sin Yam Huat: Claim for Monies Due Under Architect's Certificate
Soil-Build (Pte) Ltd, the Plaintiff, sued Sin Yam Huat Investment Holding Pte Ltd, the Defendant, in the High Court of Singapore on 28 November 2000, claiming monies due under an Architect's certificate. The dispute centered on whether Soil-Build had satisfactorily completed minor outstanding works, particularly concerning aluminium cladding installed by a sub-contractor. The court allowed the Plaintiff's appeal for summary judgment in the amount of $368,205.34 plus interest, but stayed the judgment pending the determination of any counterclaim by the Defendant regarding defective works.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiffs in the sum of $368,205.34 plus interest; such judgment to be stayed pending determination of any counterclaim to be filed by the Defendants in respect of defective works.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Soil-Build (Pte) Ltd sued Sin Yam Huat Investment Holding Pte Ltd for monies due under an Architect's certificate. The court granted summary judgment to Soil-Build, stayed pending counterclaim.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Soil-Build (Pte) Ltd | Plaintiff, Appellant | Corporation | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | |
| Sin Yam Huat Investment Holding Pte Ltd | Defendant, Respondent | Corporation | Judgment against Defendant | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lee Seiu Kin | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Soil-Build was the main contractor for a construction project owned by Sin Yam Huat.
- The contract incorporated the Singapore Institute of Architects Conditions of Building Contract for lump sum contracts.
- A dispute arose regarding the satisfactory completion of minor outstanding works, particularly concerning aluminium cladding.
- The parties agreed to appoint Building Appraisal Pte Ltd as an independent third party to assess the cost of rectification works.
- Building Appraisal Pte Ltd submitted a report estimating the cost of outstanding rectification works.
- The Architect issued a final certificate determining the sum payable to Soil-Build, deducting an amount for defective works.
- Sin Yam Huat made a call on the performance bond.
5. Formal Citations
- Soil-Build (Pte) Ltd v Sin Yam Huat Investment Holding Pte Ltd, Suit 406/2000/G consolidated with S600180/2000, RA 63/2000, [2000] SGHC 253
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Contract entered into between Soil-Build and Sin Yam Huat. | |
| Contract period commenced. | |
| Diethelm Industries Pte Ltd appointed as nominated sub-contractor. | |
| Architect issued Completion Certificate stating Project completed on 24 January 1998. | |
| Project completed. | |
| Maintenance Period ended. | |
| Sin Yam Huat called on the performance bond. | |
| Parties agreed to appoint an independent third party to identify outstanding defects. | |
| Soil-Build sent letter to Building Appraisal Pte Ltd setting out terms of appointment. | |
| Building Appraisal Pte Ltd produced a report listing defects. | |
| Soil-Build requested Building Appraisal Pte Ltd to certify completion of rectification works. | |
| Salem Ibrahim & Partners wrote to Building Appraisal Pte Ltd regarding inspection. | |
| Building Appraisal Pte Ltd replied to Salem Ibrahim & Partners. | |
| Allen & Gledhill wrote to Salem Ibrahim & Partners enclosing draft letter to Building Appraisal Pte Ltd. | |
| Allen & Gledhill sent letter to Building Appraisal Pte Ltd clarifying scope of work. | |
| Salem Ibrahim & Partners protested Soil-Build's instructions to Building Appraisal Pte Ltd. | |
| Allen & Gledhill replied to Salem Ibrahim & Partners regarding instructions to Building Appraisal Pte Ltd. | |
| Salem Ibrahim & Partners requested final inspection date from Building Appraisal Pte Ltd. | |
| Soil-Build asked Building Appraisal Pte Ltd if they wished to conduct a final inspection. | |
| Building Appraisal Pte Ltd replied stating they would not conduct a final inspection. | |
| Building Appraisal Pte Ltd submitted report of cost estimates. | |
| Salem Ibrahim & Partners stated Sin Yam Huat did not accept cost estimates. | |
| Allen & Gledhill replied regarding Sin Yam Huat's rejection of cost estimates. | |
| Sin Yam Huat made a second call on the bond. | |
| Hearing for interlocutory injunction. | |
| Hearing before Justice Rubin adjourned due to settlement negotiations. | |
| Parties agreed to settle matter by appointing a third party Quantity Surveyor. | |
| Allen & Gledhill sent letter to Building Appraisal Pte Ltd regarding re-appointment. | |
| Building Appraisal Pte Ltd set out proposal for undertaking the appointment. | |
| Allen & Gledhill objected to Building Appraisal Pte Ltd defining their own scope of works. | |
| Salem Ibrahim & Partners protested Allen & Gledhill's interference. | |
| Building Appraisal Pte Ltd wrote to Allen & Gledhill regarding assessment of rectification works. | |
| Building Appraisal Pte Ltd submitted report stating cost of outstanding rectification works was $149,510. | |
| Architect issued final certificate. | |
| Soil-Build commenced Suit 406/2000. | |
| Hearing for injunction. | |
| Suits S406/2000/G and S600180/2000 were ordered to be consolidated. | |
| Assistant Registrar dismissed the application for summary judgment. | |
| Appeal allowed and judgment given for the Plaintiffs. | |
| Grounds of Decision given. |
7. Legal Issues
- Summary Judgment
- Outcome: The court granted summary judgment for the Plaintiff based on the Architect's certificate.
- Category: Procedural
- Architect's Certificate
- Outcome: The court held that the Architect's certificate should be given temporary finality under the SIA Conditions of Contract.
- Category: Substantive
- Interference with Independent Assessment
- Outcome: The court found that the Plaintiffs had interfered with the discretion granted to Building Appraisal Pte Ltd to determine the matter.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
- Ancillary Reliefs
9. Cause of Actions
- Claim for monies due under an Architect's certificate
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Construction Disputes
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No cited cases | |||||
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Architect's certificate
- SIA Conditions
- Completion Certificate
- Minor Outstanding Works
- Performance bond
- Settlement Agreement
- Rectification works
- Independent third party
- Defective works
- Final certificate
15.2 Keywords
- construction
- contract
- architect
- certificate
- summary judgment
- singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Construction Law | 75 |
| Defective Works | 65 |
| Breach of Contract | 60 |
| Contract Law | 60 |
| Architect's Certificate | 55 |
| Summary Judgement | 50 |
| Settlement Agreement | 45 |
| Arbitration | 40 |
| Performance Bonds | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Construction Dispute
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure