Sintal Enterprise v Multiplex Constructions: Arbitration Stay & Set-Off in Construction Delay Dispute

In Sintal Enterprise Pte Ltd v Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd, the Singapore High Court addressed an appeal by Multiplex Constructions against the assistant registrar's decision regarding a stay of proceedings in favor of arbitration. Sintal Enterprise, a stonework supplier, sued Multiplex, the main contractor, for sums due under interim certificates, other stonework supplied, variations, and installation works, as well as damages for delay and a refund of a performance bond. Multiplex sought a stay of proceedings under Section 6 of the Arbitration Act, arguing that the disputes were subject to arbitration agreements. The High Court dismissed Multiplex's appeal, finding that there was no arbitrable dispute regarding the sums due under the interim certificates because Multiplex had implicitly accepted the correctness of the interim certificates and failed to comply with the conditions precedent for set-off under the SIA sub-contract conditions.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court case regarding a stay of proceedings for arbitration and set-off claims in a construction delay dispute. Appeal dismissed.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Multiplex Constructions Pty LtdDefendant, AppellantCorporationAppeal DismissedLost
Sintal Enterprise Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationAppeal DismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lai Siu ChiuJudgeYes

4. Counsels

4. Facts

  1. Sintal was contracted to supply and install stonework for the Haig Court Condominium project.
  2. Multiplex was the main contractor for the Haig Court Condominium project.
  3. The original completion date was extended twice due to delays.
  4. Sintal claimed payment for stonework, variations, and installation works.
  5. Multiplex sought to set off losses due to Sintal's alleged delay against the certified sum.
  6. Multiplex issued notices of intention to set off 'site overheads' and 'running costs'.
  7. The SIA sub-contract conditions governed the set-off process.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Sintal Enterprise Pte Ltd v Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd, Suit 243/2004, RA 162/2004, [2004] SGHC 223

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Main contract dated
Letter of award from project's architects to plaintiff
Defendant accepted plaintiff as nominated supplier
Installation contract dated
Supply contract dated
First supplemental agreement dated
Second supplemental agreement dated
Defendant made demand for guaranteed sum
Defendant received guaranteed sum
Plaintiff commenced action
Defendant applied for stay of proceedings
Assistant registrar ordered partial stay of proceedings
Appeal heard and dismissed
Decision date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Stay of Court Proceedings in Favor of Arbitration
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the appeal, finding that there was no arbitrable dispute regarding the sums due under the interim certificates.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Scope of arbitration agreement
    • Related Cases:
      • SA Shee & Co (Pte) Ltd v Kaki Bukit Industrial Park Pte Ltd [2000] 2 SLR 12
      • Kwan Im Tong Chinese Temple v Fong Choon Hung Construction Pte Ltd [1998] 2 SLR 137
  2. Set-Off and Abatement
    • Outcome: The court found that the defendant had failed to comply with the conditions precedent for set-off under the SIA sub-contract conditions.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Requirements of Singapore Institute of Architects Conditions of Sub-contract
      • Quantification of set-off
      • Notice requirements for set-off
  3. Compensation for Delays
    • Outcome: The court held that the defendant was attempting to claim general damages for delay when the contract provided for liquidated damages, and that the defendant had not proven that the plaintiff's delay was the sole cause of the overall delay.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Claim for set-off due to delay
      • General damages vs. liquidated damages
    • Related Cases:
      • Temloc Ltd v Errill Properties Ltd (1987) 39 BLR 30
      • Lightweight Concrete Pte Ltd v JDC Corp [1998] SGHC 178
      • JDC Corporation v Lightweight Concrete Pte Ltd [1999] 1 SLR 615

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages
  2. Refund of guaranteed sum

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Arbitration
  • Construction Law
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Temloc Ltd v Errill Properties LtdNot AvailableYesTemloc Ltd v Errill Properties Ltd (1987) 39 BLR 30England and WalesCited for the principle that liquidated damages are an exhaustive remedy where provided for delay.
Lightweight Concrete Pte Ltd v JDC CorpHigh Court of SingaporeYesLightweight Concrete Pte Ltd v JDC Corp [1998] SGHC 178SingaporeCited for the principle that liquidated damages are an exhaustive remedy where provided for delay.
JDC Corporation v Lightweight Concrete Pte LtdCourt of Appeal of SingaporeNoJDC Corporation v Lightweight Concrete Pte Ltd [1999] 1 SLR 615SingaporeCited as a case where the court determined that liquidated damages were not necessarily the sole remedy for delay, depending on the construction of the contract.
Kwan Im Tong Chinese Temple v Fong Choon Hung Construction Pte LtdCourt of Appeal of SingaporeYesKwan Im Tong Chinese Temple v Fong Choon Hung Construction Pte Ltd [1998] 2 SLR 137SingaporeCited for the principle that the court should adopt a holistic and common-sense approach to see if there was a dispute for purposes of an arbitration clause.
SA Shee & Co (Pte) Ltd v Kaki Bukit Industrial Park Pte LtdCourt of Appeal of SingaporeYesSA Shee & Co (Pte) Ltd v Kaki Bukit Industrial Park Pte Ltd [2000] 2 SLR 12SingaporeCited for the principle that whether a dispute falls within an arbitration clause depends on the nature of the dispute and the scope of the clause.
L & M Airconditioning & Refrigeration (Pte) Ltd v SA Shee & Co (Pte) LtdNot AvailableYesL & M Airconditioning & Refrigeration (Pte) Ltd v SA Shee & Co (Pte) Ltd [1993] 3 SLR 482SingaporeCited for the principle that where more than one party causes delay, damages must be properly apportioned.
Lam Hong Leong Aluminium Pte Ltd v Lian Teck Huat Construction Pte LtdHigh Court of SingaporeYesLam Hong Leong Aluminium Pte Ltd v Lian Teck Huat Construction Pte Ltd [2003] SGHC 53SingaporeCited for the principle that where more than one party causes delay, damages must be properly apportioned.
Hayter v NelsonNot AvailableYesHayter v Nelson [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 265England and WalesCited for the principle that 'disputes' and 'differences' in an arbitration clause should be given their ordinary meaning.
China Construction (South Pacific) Development Co Pte Ltd v Leisure Park (Singapore) Pte LtdNot AvailableNoChina Construction (South Pacific) Development Co Pte Ltd v Leisure Park (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2000] 1 SLR 622SingaporeCited regarding waiver of defects in notices.
Steel Industries Pte Ltd v Deenn Engineering Pte LtdNot AvailableNoSteel Industries Pte Ltd v Deenn Engineering Pte Ltd [2003] 3 SLR 377SingaporeCited regarding waiver of defects in notices.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 2002 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Arbitration
  • Stay of proceedings
  • Set-off
  • Interim certificate
  • Liquidated damages
  • General damages
  • SIA sub-contract conditions
  • Delay
  • Completion date
  • Sub-contract works

15.2 Keywords

  • arbitration
  • stay of proceedings
  • set-off
  • construction
  • delay
  • Singapore

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Arbitration
  • Construction Dispute
  • Contract Law