Tan Chiang Brother's Marble v Permasteelisa: Granite Cladding Dispute

In a case before the High Court of Singapore on 30 November 2001, Tan Chiang Brother's Marble (S) Pte Ltd sued Permasteelisa Pacific Holdings Ltd over disputes arising from granite cladding work on two commercial buildings, Goldbell Tower and Cuppage Centre, as well as a third project, China Square. The plaintiffs claimed for variation works and unpaid balances, while the defendants counterclaimed for defective works and other expenses. The court ruled on liability for various claims and counterclaims, reserving the issue of costs and interest until after the assessment of damages by the Registrar. The court found in favor of the plaintiffs on some claims and in favor of the defendants on others.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff in part and Judgment for Defendant in part.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

A dispute over granite cladding work on Goldbell Tower and Cuppage Centre. The court ruled on liability for variation claims and counterclaims.

1.7 Decision Date

29 November 2001

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Permasteelisa Pacific Holdings Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Judgment for Defendant in part	Partial	Monica Neo of Chan Tan & Partners
Tan Chiang Brother's Marble (S) Pte Ltd	Plaintiff	Corporation	Judgment for Plaintiff in part	Partial	Ng Yuen of Ng & Koh

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Lai Siu Chiu	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Monica Neo	Chan Tan & Partners
Ng Yuen	Ng & Koh

4. Facts

The plaintiffs and defendants entered into a subcontract for granite cladding works on Cuppage Centre and Goldbell Tower.
The plaintiffs claimed for variation works on the Cuppage Centre project.
The defendants counterclaimed for defective works and other expenses on both projects.
The defendants complained about the vast differences in tonality of the granite panels and the uneven lippages of each installed piece on Goldbell Tower.
The plaintiffs refused to carry out any rectification works for the tonality differences because they claimed the same were a natural phenomenon as granite is a stone.

5. Formal Citations

Tan Chiang Brother's Marble (S) Pte Ltd v Permasteelisa Pacific Holdings Ltd, Suit 14/2001, [2001] SGHC 386

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1996-01-01	Plaintiffs tendered for external cladding works at Cuppage Centre as a nominated subcontractor/supplier; they were unsuccessful.
1996-10-01	Defendants were appointed the nominated subcontractors by Sato Kogyo Company Ltd to design, supply and install granite cladding to the entire external elevations of Cuppage Centre.
1997-06-20	Defendants' letter of intent to plaintiffs.
1997-09-04	Plaintiffs' quotation date.
1997-10-01	Reynaldo and Terence Chin approached Koh for assistance to set up a temporary site office.
1997-10-20	Plaintiffs countersigned the letter of intent.
1997-12-31	Defendants invoiced the plaintiffs $10,000 for drafting assistance.
1998-02-01	Plaintiffs proposed using 'tack weld' instead of 'tek screw'.
1998-02-25	Koh's fax to the plaintiffs regarding flashings.
1998-02-26	Defendants' letter to plaintiffs pointing out their mistake regarding welding and flashings.
1998-04-01	Defendants rented and supplied a gondola and forklift at the plaintiffs' request.
1998-06-01	Defendants alleged that plaintiffs damaged scanclimber working platforms.
1998-06-01	Koh was informed by Sato that sparks from the welding works on the steel frames had damaged some glazing panels.
1998-06-29	Sato's complaint that a number of glazing panels had been damaged by welding sparks.
1998-07-01	Sato informed the defendants that all debris left behind by the plaintiffs' cladding works had to be cleared on a daily basis.
1998-07-01	Plaintiffs requested the defendants for soft copies of architectural tender drawings.
1998-07-21	Plaintiffs’ initial installation of segmented panels was rejected by the architects at a joint inspection.
1998-07-23	Plaintiffs' letter to the defendants regarding the grand staircase coping.
1998-09-07	Sato informed the defendants that they would engage their own sealant specialist to carry out the sealing.
1998-09-15	Plaintiffs' letter regarding Goldbell project terms and conditions.
1998-10-01	Sato complained that workers of the plaintiffs' subcontractors had used the windows as an access and working platform.
1998-10-01	Koh was informed by Sato that the plaintiffs had requested Sato to provide mobile scaffolding.
1998-10-12	Defendants' letter regarding Goldbell project terms and conditions.
1998-11-10	Koh informed the plaintiffs via fax that the defendants would recover the sum from the plaintiffs for damaged windows.
1998-11-18	Meeting between representatives of Sato, EMT Engineering Pte Ltd, the defendants and the plaintiffs to inspect and verify the damage to the scanclimber.
1998-11-18	Sato notified the defendants that they would deduct $3,000 from the defendants' progress payment for the costs of replacement/repair of the damaged platform.
1998-11-24	Plaintiffs' letter regarding Goldbell project terms and conditions.
1998-12-10	Defendants received Sato's invoice for $3,090 for damage to scanclimber.
1998-12-15	Defendants received a similar complaint from Sato regarding glazing panels.
1998-12-18	Joint inspection conducted by Koh, Reynaldo, Terence Chin and representatives of Sato.
1999-01-01	Architect's instruction to change the granite modules on the second storey.
1999-02-01	Plaintiffs' letter cautioning the defendants on the expected variations in tonality of colours and texture.
1999-02-09	Fax from the defendants to the plaintiffs advising that the surplus granite panels had to be removed.
1999-02-24	Plaintiffs would begin installation on Goldbell project.
1999-03-01	Cuppage Centre project completed.
1999-03-01	Defendants complained about the vast differences in tonality.
1999-04-01	Goldbell project completed.
1999-04-02	Defendants complained about the vast differences in tonality.
1999-05-01	Defendants complained about the vast differences in tonality.
1999-08-01	Plaintiffs' draughtsman Cecil was stationed at the defendants' office to co-ordinate the dimensions.
1999-08-30	Plaintiffs demanded $704,220.33 from the defendants.
1999-09-03	Defendants denied liability and repeated their request that the plaintiffs carry out rectification works.
1999-10-12	Defendants’ letter to Goldbell’s owners.
2001-02-09	Defendants’ Further and Better Particulars filed.
2001-11-30	Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court ruled on liability for various claims and counterclaims related to the contract.
- Category: Substantive
Variation Claims
- Outcome: The court ruled on the validity of several variation claims made by the plaintiff.
- Category: Substantive
Defective Works
- Outcome: The court found in favor of the defendant on their counterclaim for defective works on the Goldbell project.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation
Construction Disputes

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

Granite Cladding
Variation Claims
Defective Works
Lippages
Tonality
Subcontract
Nominated Subcontractor
Flashings
Sealant
Debris

15.2 Keywords

Granite
Cladding
Construction
Variation
Defect
Singapore
High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Contract Law	80
Breach of Contract	75
Contractual Disputes	70
Construction Law	65
Building and Construction Contracts	60
Commercial Disputes	60
Construction Litigation	50
Defective Works	45
Damages	40
Summary Judgement	30
Costs	20

16. Subjects

Construction Dispute
Contract Law