Leefon Corporation v Stone Tec: Dispute over Material Overpayment for Sunrise Condominium Project

Leefon Corporation (Pte) Ltd sued Stone Tec Material Supplies Pte Ltd in the High Court of Singapore, alleging overpayment of $12,784.14 for materials supplied for the Sunrise Condominium project. Stone Tec counterclaimed for $99,251.80, asserting underpayment. The District Judge dismissed Leefon's claim and allowed the counterclaim. On appeal, Judith Prakash J of the High Court allowed Leefon's appeal, set aside the lower court's judgment, and dismissed Stone Tec's counterclaim, finding that Stone Tec failed to properly plead its case and establish a legal basis for its charges.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Leefon Corporation sued Stone Tec for overpayment on materials for the Sunrise Condominium project. The High Court allowed Leefon's appeal, dismissing Stone Tec's counterclaim.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Leefon Corporation (Pte) LtdAppellant, PlaintiffCorporationAppeal AllowedWon
Stone Tec Material Supplies Pte LtdRespondent, DefendantCorporationCounterclaim DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Judith PrakashJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Ong Pang MengTang & Partners
A JeyanthyTang & Partners
Oliver QuekRodyk & Davidson
Ng Hwee ChingRodyk & Davidson

4. Facts

  1. Leefon contracted with Stone Tec to supply stone materials for the Sunrise Condominium project.
  2. The contract was based on a proforma invoice and an agreed bill of quantities (BQ).
  3. Stone Tec delivered materials and raised invoices with rates differing from the BQ.
  4. Leefon made several payments but disputed the final amount claimed by Stone Tec.
  5. Stone Tec's counterclaim sought $99,251.80, alleging underpayment for materials supplied.
  6. Leefon claimed they had overpaid Stone Tec by $12,784.14 based on their computation using the BQ rates.
  7. Stone Tec failed to adequately explain how their invoices were computed or justify the prices charged.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Leefon Corporation (Pte) Ltd v Stone Tec Material Supplies Pte Ltd, DA 600003/2001, [2001] SGHC 216

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Leefon awarded subcontract to supply stone materials for Sunrise Condominium project.
Leefon forwarded a fresh bill of quantities and architect’s drawings to Stone Tec.
Stone Tec sent Leefon a proforma invoice with terms for supplying materials.
Leefon accepted Stone Tec’s offer by signing the proforma invoice.
Stone Tec signed the proforma invoice.
Stone Tec commenced delivery of materials to the project.
Leefon paid Stone Tec $61,336.50.
Leefon forwarded cutting lists, drawings, and schedules of quantities to Stone Tec.
Bulk of material supplied from this date onwards.
Leefon paid Stone Tec $103,000.00.
Stone Tec submitted their claim for payment.
Leefon paid Stone Tec $103,000.00.
Meeting held to resolve billing discrepancies.
Last delivery of materials made.
Leefon paid Stone Tec $30,900.00.
Leefon paid Stone Tec $51,500.00.
Leefon wrote to Stone Tec stating reasons for non-payment.
Site meeting held to confirm quantities of materials supplied.
Stone Tec forwarded further computation.
Leefon forwarded recomputed figures to Stone Tec for verification.
Parties met and Stone Tec objected to Leefon’s computation.
Leefon recomputed the amount due to Stone Tec as $306,918.10.
Judgment Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that Stone Tec failed to establish a legal basis for charging rates different from those agreed in the contract, constituting a breach.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Pleadings
    • Outcome: The court held that Stone Tec's counterclaim was deficiently pleaded, as it did not specify the basis for charges differing from the original contract.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages
  2. Reimbursement of Overpayment

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Overpayment

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Construction Disputes

11. Industries

  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Trentham Ltd v Archital LuxferN/AYes[1993] Lloyd’s Law Reports, 25N/ACited for the principle that a contract can be concluded by conduct where the transaction was fully performed.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Bill of Quantities
  • Proforma Invoice
  • Cutting Lists
  • Overpayment
  • Underpayment
  • Variation Orders
  • Construction Materials
  • Sunrise Condominium

15.2 Keywords

  • construction
  • contract
  • overpayment
  • bill of quantities
  • Singapore
  • High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Contract Law80
Breach of Contract75
Contracts70
Commercial Litigation60
Construction Contract50
Overpayment40

16. Subjects

  • Contract Dispute
  • Construction Dispute
  • Supply of Goods