Em Services v Triple Five: Breach of Contract & Unauthorised Land-Filling

In Suit 1451/1996, Em Services Private Limited sued Triple Five Transportation & Engineering Construction Pte Ltd in the High Court of Singapore on January 2, 2001, for breach of contract related to works at Hume Heights Estate. Em Services alleged unauthorized land-filling, use of unacceptable earthwork materials, and failure to perform contractual duties. Triple Five denied the allegations and counterclaimed for payment. The court (Lai Siu Chiu J) found Triple Five liable for breach of contract, awarding interlocutory judgment to Em Services with damages to be assessed. Triple Five's counterclaim was partially allowed for the original contract price but dismissed for additional work claimed.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Interlocutory judgment for Em Services; counterclaim by Triple Five allowed in part and dismissed in part.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Em Services sued Triple Five for breach of contract due to unauthorized land-filling. The court found Triple Five liable, ordering damages to be assessed.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Em Services Private LimitedPlaintiffCorporationInterlocutory JudgmentWon
Triple Five Transportation & Engineering Construction Pte LtdDefendantCorporationCounterclaim Allowed in Part, Dismissed in PartPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lai Siu ChiuJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Jeffrey Beh Eng SiewLee Bon Leong & Co
Siow Hua LinLee Bon Leong & Co
Mustaffa bin Abu BakarTito Isaac & Co
Tito Shane IssacTito Isaac & Co

4. Facts

  1. Em Services contracted with Triple Five for clearance and turfing works at three sites.
  2. The contract period was from June 1, 1995, to August 31, 1995.
  3. Triple Five's tender price of $69,125.00 was accepted by Em Services.
  4. Em Services alleged Triple Five carried out unauthorized land-filling at Hume Heights Estate.
  5. Em Services claimed the earthwork material used by Triple Five was of unacceptable quality.
  6. Em Services asserted Triple Five failed to reinstate and restore the site after performance of the contract.
  7. Em Services alleged Triple Five's poor performance resulted in damage and defects at the site.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Em Services Private Limited v Triple Five Transportation & Engineering Construction Pte Ltd, Suit 1451/1996, [2001] SGHC 2

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Contract entered into between Em Services and Triple Five.
Triple Five commenced work at Hume Heights Estate.
Em Services put out an open tender for certain projects.
Triple Five tendered for the projects.
Triple Five's tender price accepted by Em Services.
Triple Five offered to carry out additional contractual works at no extra charge.
Em Services wrote to Triple Five requesting that Triple Five not allow further sand refill without prior instructions.
Triple Five completed the project.
Em Services wrote to Triple Five regarding clearance works at Hume Heights Estate and Ridout Road.
Em Services stated that Triple Five still permitted the dumping of earth at Hume Heights Estate.
Em Services wrote to protest against the dumping of earth material at Hume Heights.
Em Services wrote to Triple Five to register their protest and repeated their warning to the defendants to cease their earthworks activities.
Em Services wrote to Triple Five maintaining their position that they never requested any landfill at Hume Heights Estate or at the Kay Siang site.
Em Services received letter from Triple Five dated 19 September 1995.
Date of filing of the counterclaim.
Judgment Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that Triple Five breached the contract by carrying out unauthorized land-filling activities and using unacceptable earthwork materials.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Unauthorised land-filling
      • Use of unacceptable earthwork materials
      • Failure to reinstate site
  2. Scope of Contract
    • Outcome: The court determined that the land-filling activities carried out by Triple Five were outside the scope of the original contract.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages
  2. Interest

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Construction Disputes

11. Industries

  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Bolton v MahadevaN/AYes[1972] 2 All ER 1322N/ACited for the principle that substantial performance of a contract entitles the contractor to the stipulated price, subject to a cross-action or counterclaim for omissions or defects.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 15 rule 2(1) of the Rules of Court
O 15 r 2(4)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Land-filling
  • Earthworks
  • Contract
  • Breach of Contract
  • Reinstatement
  • Unauthorised
  • Soil Quality
  • Hume Heights Estate

15.2 Keywords

  • breach of contract
  • land-filling
  • construction
  • singapore
  • high court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Breach of Contract90
Contract Law80
Construction Law60
Property Damage40
Earthworks30

16. Subjects

  • Construction Dispute
  • Contract Law
  • Breach of Contract