Evergreat Construction v Presscrete Engineering: Expert Determination & Prevention Principle in Construction Dispute

In Evergreat Construction Co Pte Ltd v Presscrete Engineering Pte Ltd, the Singapore High Court addressed a dispute between a main contractor (Evergreat) and a subcontractor (Presscrete) concerning a construction project. After court proceedings commenced, both parties agreed to resolve their differences by referring all pending claims to an independent assessor. Evergreat later sought to set aside the assessor's award, alleging failures in the assessment process. The High Court dismissed Evergreat's application, holding that Evergreat's conduct precluded them from challenging the award and that the assessor acted within the scope of their appointment.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's application to set aside the independent assessor's award was dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court case concerning a construction dispute resolved via expert determination. The court addressed the validity of the expert's award and the application of the prevention principle.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Presscrete Engineering Pte LtdDefendantCorporationCounterclaim AllowedWon
Evergreat Construction Co Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationApplication to set aside award dismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
V K RajahJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Lim Ker SheonAsia Law Corporation
Shahiran IbrahimAsia Law Corporation
Mohd Sadique Bin Ibrahim MaricanSadique Marican and Z M Amin
Anand KumarSadique Marican and Z M Amin

4. Facts

  1. Evergreat was the main contractor for the construction of Woodlands Junior College.
  2. Presscrete was the subcontractor appointed to design, supply, and install the micro-piling foundation.
  3. Presscrete did not meet the contractually stipulated deadline for completion.
  4. The parties agreed to resolve their differences by referring all pending claims to an independent assessor.
  5. The plaintiff failed to comply with the independent assessor's directions and did not pay its share of the assessor's fees.
  6. The plaintiff stated it was "not viable" to proceed with the matter.
  7. The independent assessor issued an award in favor of the defendant.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Evergreat Construction Co Pte Ltd v Presscrete Engineering Pte Ltd, Suit 1044/2003, SIC 3965/2005, [2005] SGHC 224

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Hearing of claims fixed for five days
Hearing of claims fixed for five days
Hearing of claims fixed for five days
Hearing of claims fixed for five days
Independent assessor held first meeting with counsel
Independent assessor issued Order for Directions No 7
Mr. Tan Kin Hoon and his wife appeared before the court
Plaintiff's original counsel stated his firm had discharged itself
Independent assessor issued a peremptory directive to the plaintiff
Deadline for plaintiffs to comply with Independent Assessor's directions
Independent assessor informed the parties of the consequences of non-compliance
Independent assessor clarified the procedure applicable to the assessment
Independent assessor requested additional documentary evidence from the defendant and notified the plaintiff of outstanding orders
Deadline for plaintiff to submit documents
Independent assessor issued his award
Plaintiff applied to court to set aside the independent assessor’s award
Court dismissed the plaintiff’s setting aside application
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Validity of Expert Determination
    • Outcome: The court held that the independent assessor did not depart from his instructions and that the award was valid.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Departure from instructions
      • Failure to provide reasoned award
    • Related Cases:
      • [1976] 1 WLR 403
      • [1992] 1 WLR 277
  2. Application of Prevention Principle
    • Outcome: The court held that the plaintiff could not take advantage of its own wrong by failing to participate in the assessment process and then complaining that its claim was not assessed.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Party taking advantage of own wrong
      • Breach of duty to cooperate
    • Related Cases:
      • [1988] 1 WLR 587
  3. Obligation to Provide Reasons for Award
    • Outcome: The court held that the independent assessor was not legally obliged to provide reasons for his award because the terms of reference did not mandate it.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Requirement for a 'speaking' or 'reasoned' award
      • Consequences of failing to provide reasons

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Setting aside of Independent Assessor's Award
  2. Monetary damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Construction Disputes
  • Arbitration

11. Industries

  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Campbell v EdwardsEnglish Court of AppealYes[1976] 1 WLR 403England and WalesCited as the starting point for the modern statement on the law relating to experts, emphasizing that parties are bound by an expert's valuation made honestly and in good faith.
Baber v Kenwood Manufacturing Co Ltd and Whinney Murray & CoEnglish Court of AppealYes[1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 175England and WalesCited to support the principle that parties accepting an expert's opinion accept the risk of the expert being wrong or muddle-headed, but not dishonest or corrupt.
Channel Tunnel Group Ltd v Balfour Beatty Construction LtdHouse of LordsYes[1993] AC 334England and WalesCited to emphasize that parties who make agreements for dispute resolution must show good reasons for departing from them.
Jones v Sherwood Computer Services plcEnglish Court of AppealYes[1992] 1 WLR 277England and WalesCited as the leading case on challenging an expert's report, stating that it can only be challenged if the expert departed from instructions in a material respect.
Shell UK Ltd v Enterprise Oil plcEnglish High CourtYes[1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 456England and WalesCited to support the principle that an expert's act is not binding if there is a material breach of instructions.
Commonwealth of Australia v Wawbe Pty LtdN/AYesBC 9805379, LexisAustraliaCited to emphasize that the critical question is whether the valuation was made in accordance with the terms of the contract, not whether there was an error in the valuer's judgment.
Standard Chartered Bank v Neocorp International LtdN/AYes[2005] 2 SLR 345SingaporeCited to support the legal efficacy of clauses where parties expressly agree on the modalities for determining a matter.
Stirling v MaitlandN/AYes(1864) 5 B & S 841; 122 ER 1043N/ACited for the principle that if a party enters into an agreement that can only take effect by the continuance of a certain existing state of circumstances, there is an implied engagement not to put an end to that state of circumstances.
Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd v ShirlawHouse of LordsYes[1940] AC 701England and WalesCited as support for the implied duty to cooperate.
Schindler v Northern Raincoat Co LtdN/AYes[1960] 1 WLR 1038N/ACited as support for the implied duty to cooperate.
Mackay v DickHouse of LordsYes(1881) 6 App Cas 251United KingdomCited for the principle that where both parties agree that something shall be done, each agrees to do all that is necessary to be done on his part for the carrying out of that thing.
Alghussein Establishment v Eton CollegeHouse of LordsYes[1988] 1 WLR 587England and WalesCited for the principle that no man can take advantage of his own wrong.
Kensland Realty Ltd v Whale View Investment LtdHong Kong Court of Final AppealYes(2001) 4 HKCFAR 381Hong KongCited for the principle that a party in default under a contract cannot take advantage of his own wrong.
Morris v Baron and CompanyHouse of LordsYes[1918] AC 1United KingdomCited for the principle that a party to a contract cannot claim to exercise rights while repudiating obligations.
Nina’s Bar Bistro Pty Ltd v MBE Corporation (Sydney) Pty LtdN/AYes[1984] 3 NSWLR 613New South Wales, AustraliaCited for the principle that the advantage the contract breaker is seeking to raise must be identified.

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

  • Independent Assessor
  • Expert Determination
  • Prevention Principle
  • Terms of Reference
  • Reasoned Award
  • Micro-piling
  • Consent Order
  • Contumacious Conduct
  • Assessment Process

15.2 Keywords

  • construction
  • expert determination
  • prevention principle
  • independent assessor
  • contract
  • award
  • singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Contract Law90
Expert Determination70
Prevention principle60
Arbitration50
Commercial Disputes40

16. Subjects

  • Construction Dispute
  • Contract Law
  • Arbitration
  • Expert Determination