Hiap Hong v Hong Huat: Implied Term for Architect's Certification Duties under SIA Contract
Hiap Hong & Co Pte Ltd appealed to the Court of Appeal of Singapore against the decision of Woo Bih Li JC, regarding an implied term in a Singapore Institute of Architects (SIA) contract with Hong Huat Development Co (Pte) Ltd. The dispute concerned whether Hong Huat, as employers, were liable for the alleged defaults of the architect in discharging his certifying duties. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no justification for implying a wide-ranging term that would make the owner liable for the architect's failure to issue certificates at the prescribed time, irrespective of the reasons for the failure or the owner's knowledge of the delay.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding an implied term in a SIA contract making employers liable for architects' defaults in certification duties. The court dismissed the appeal.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hiap Hong & Co Pte Ltd | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Hong Huat Development Co (Pte) Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| L P Thean | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Hiap Hong was the main contractor for a development owned by Hong Huat.
- A dispute arose out of an SIA contract between Hiap Hong and Hong Huat.
- Hiap Hong alleged the architect failed to discharge his certifying duties.
- Hiap Hong claimed the architect issued ICPs late, causing interest losses.
- Hiap Hong claimed the architect allowed excessive retention money deductions.
- Hiap Hong claimed the architect failed to issue certificates for retained amounts.
- Hiap Hong claimed the architect failed to issue the Final Certificate on time.
5. Formal Citations
- Hiap Hong & Co Pte Ltd v Hong Huat Development Co (Pte) Ltd, CA 104/2000, [2001] SGCA 17
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| First appeal reported in [2000] 2 SLR 609 | |
| Decision Date | |
| The Moorcock case | |
| Contractors gave notice of their intention to determine their employment under cl 26 | |
| SPDC gave notice of determination under cl 25 | |
| Notice of determination |
7. Legal Issues
- Implied Term for Architect's Certification Duties
- Outcome: The court held that there was no justification for implying a wide-ranging term that would make the owner liable for the architect's failure to issue certificates at the prescribed time.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Duty to ensure timely issuance of certificates
- Duty to ensure correct valuation in certificates
- Liability for architect's defaults
- Related Cases:
- [2000] 2 SLR 609
- [1974] AC 727
- [1889] 14 PD 64
- [1943] 76 Lloyd LR 113
- [1969] 2 NSWR 530
- [1986] 33 BLR 39
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Breach of Implied Term
10. Practice Areas
- Construction Law
- Commercial Litigation
- Arbitration
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hiap Hong & Co Pte Ltd v Hong Huat Development Co (Pte) Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR 609 | Singapore | Concerns the first appeal involving the same matter and parties, regarding leave to appeal against a decision of an arbitrator under a Singapore Institute of Architects building contract. |
| Sutcliffe v Thackrah | House of Lords | Yes | [1974] AC 727 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that an architect has a dual function, acting on the client's instructions in some matters and exercising independent professional skill and judgment in others. |
| The Moorcock | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1889] 14 PD 64 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle of implied terms based on giving efficacy to a contract. |
| Shirlaw v Southern Foundries (1926) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1939] 2 KB 206 | England and Wales | Cited for the 'officious bystander' test in determining implied terms. |
| Ashmore v Corporation of Lloyd's (No 2) | N/A | Yes | [1992] 2 Lloyd's Rep 620 | N/A | Cited to show that the 'business efficacy' and 'officious bystander' tests are distinct. |
| Re Comptoir Commercial Anversois and Power, Son & Co's Arbitration | N/A | Yes | [1920] 1 KB 868 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a term should not be implied merely because it would be reasonable. |
| Frederick Leyland & Co v Panamena Europea Navigacion Cia | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1943] 76 Lloyd LR 113 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the duties of a surveyor and the implied duty of the shipowners when the surveyor departs from his proper function. |
| Perini Corp v Commonwealth of Australia | New South Wales Supreme Court | Yes | [1969] 2 NSWR 530 | Australia | Cited regarding the duties of the Director of Works as a certifier and the implied terms relating to the Commonwealth's duty to ensure the Director's proper performance. |
| Lubenham Fidelities and Investment Co v South Pembrokeshire District Council | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1986] 33 BLR 39 | England and Wales | Cited regarding interim certificates issued by architects and whether the employer was in breach for refusing to pay more than what was certified. |
| Mona Oil Equipment & Supply Co v Rhodesia Rlys | N/A | Yes | [1949] 2 All ER 1014 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the formulation of the implied term depends on the necessity for co-operation. |
| London Borough of Merton v Stanley Hugh Leach | N/A | Yes | [1985] 32 BLR 51 | N/A | Cited for the distinction between the duties of the architect as agent of the owner and where he exercises discretionary power. |
| Nolox v Swinton & Pendlebury Borough Council | N/A | Yes | [1958] 5 BLR 34 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the corporation does not warrant the engineer's competency or skill. |
| Neale v Richardson | N/A | Yes | [1938] 1 All ER 753 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a person is entitled to stand upon their contract and say that they have undertaken to pay only when the architect gives his final certificate. |
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
- Implied Term
- SIA Contract
- Architect's Certification Duties
- Interim Certificates of Payment
- Retention Money
- Final Certificate
- Business Efficacy
- Officious Bystander Test
15.2 Keywords
- contract
- construction
- arbitration
- implied term
- architect
- certification
- SIA
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Contract Law | 80 |
| Construction Law | 75 |
| Breach of Contract | 70 |
| Building Contract | 65 |
| Arbitration | 60 |
| Architects | 55 |
16. Subjects
- Contract Law
- Construction Law
- Arbitration
- Implied Terms