Hyundai Engineering v Rankine and Hill: Negligence Claim over Piping Material Cost Calculation

Hyundai Engineering and Construction Co Ltd, the plaintiff, sued Rankine and Hill (Singapore) Pte Ltd, the defendant, in the High Court of Singapore, alleging negligence and inducement of breach of contract related to the calculation of cost savings from a change in piping material during the Glendale Park condominium construction project. Choo Han Teck J made no orders on the questions sought to be determined and awarded costs to the defendant, effectively dismissing the action.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

No orders made on the questions sought to be determined; costs awarded to the defendant as if the action was dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Hyundai Engineering sued Rankine and Hill for negligence in calculating cost savings for changed piping material. The court found no duty of care was breached.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Hyundai Engineering and Construction Co LtdPlaintiffCorporationClaim DismissedDismissed
Rankine and Hill (Singapore) Pte LtdDefendantCorporationJudgment for DefendantWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Vinodh CoomaraswamyShook Lin and Bok
Kenneth ChooShook Lin and Bok
Tan Lee ChengHarry Elias Partnership
Kenneth LeongHarry Elias Partnership

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiff was the main contractor for the Glendale Park condominium project.
  2. Defendant was the mechanical and electrical consultant for the project, employed by the developer.
  3. The contract specified 'hubless' cast iron pipes for certain diameters and uPVC for others.
  4. Defendant instructed a change to 'all horizontal soil waste pipes from cast iron to uPVC'.
  5. The change resulted in cost savings to the developer, requiring the plaintiff to credit the difference.
  6. Plaintiff and defendant used different formulas to calculate the savings.
  7. Plaintiff calculated savings of $92,396, while defendant calculated $390,920.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Hyundai Engineering and Construction Co Ltd v Rankine and Hill (Singapore) Pte Ltd, OS 501/2004, NAOS 248/2004, [2004] SGHC 178

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Plaintiff awarded the tender for the construction of Glendale Park condominium.
Defendant instructed to change horizontal soil waste pipes from cast iron to uPVC.
Architect instructed the plaintiff to comply with the defendant’s instructions.
Plaintiff submitted its calculation of savings to the quantity surveyor.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Duty of Care
    • Outcome: The court found that the defendant was not contractually bound to certify the savings or reimbursement and was not in breach of any duty of care owed to the plaintiff.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Inducement of Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court did not make a determination on whether the defendant induced the developer to breach its contract with the plaintiff.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Proper Commencement of Action
    • Outcome: The court noted that an action in negligence ought to be commenced by way of a writ action with particulars of negligence and damage properly and sufficiently pleaded, which were wanting in the originating summons.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Determination of the correct formula for calculating savings
  2. Determination of breach of duty of care
  3. Determination of wrongful and tortious inducement of breach of contract

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence
  • Inducement of Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Construction Law
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Hiap Hong & Co Pte Ltd v Hong Huat Development CoHigh CourtYes[2000] SGHC 131SingaporeCited regarding the duty of care owed by a certifier to avoid causing economic loss to a contractor, but distinguished on the facts.
RSP Architects Planners & Engineers v Ocean Front Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[1996] 1 SLR 113SingaporeCited for the proposition that a person charged with a duty to certify is bound to discharge his duty with care and skill and owes a duty of care not to cause economic loss to the contractor.
RSP Architects Planners & Engineers (Raglan Squire & Partners FE) v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1075Court of AppealYes[1999] 2 SLR 449SingaporeCited for the proposition that a person charged with a duty to certify is bound to discharge his duty with care and skill and owes a duty of care not to cause economic loss to the contractor.

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

  • Main contract
  • Bill of quantities
  • Schedule of rates
  • uPVC pipes
  • Cast iron pipes
  • Variation
  • Savings calculation
  • Duty of care
  • Negligence
  • Inducement of breach of contract
  • Originating summons
  • Quantity surveyor

15.2 Keywords

  • Construction
  • Negligence
  • Contract
  • Piping
  • Cost Calculation
  • Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Inducement of Breach of Contract80
Contract Law75
Negligence70
Contracts65
Breach of Contract60
Civil Procedure40
Mistake30

16. Subjects

  • Construction Dispute
  • Contract Law
  • Tort Law
  • Civil Procedure