Soon Li Heng v Woon Contractors: Sub-contractor's Claim Dispute over Earthworks Payment

In Soon Li Heng Civil Engineering Pte Ltd v Woon Contractors Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore heard a claim by Soon Li Heng, a sub-contractor, against Woon Contractors, the main contractor, for failing to pay the balance sum of $629,550 (excluding GST) for earthworks completed. Woon Contractors alleged that Soon Li Heng had failed to comply with the terms of the sub-contract. The court, presided over by Justice Lai Siu Chiu, found in favor of Soon Li Heng, awarding a final judgment of $709,280 inclusive of GST and interest, and dismissed Woon Contractors' counterclaim of $537,681.25. The court determined that Soon Li Heng had carried out the earthworks in accordance with the sub-contract, and Woon Contractors' allegations of breach were unsubstantiated.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment reserved.

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Sub-contractor Soon Li Heng sues Woon Contractors for unpaid earthworks. Court finds for Soon Li Heng, dismissing Woon's counterclaim due to lack of evidence.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Soon Li Heng Civil Engineering Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationJudgment for PlaintiffWon
Woon Contractors Pte LtdDefendantCorporationCounterclaim DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lai Siu ChiuJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Yong Boon OnTan Kok Quan Partnership
Michael Chia Peng ChuangTan Kok Quan Partnership
Lee Mun HooiLee Mun Hooi and Co
Wong Nan SheeLee Mun Hooi and Co

4. Facts

  1. Soon Li Heng was sub-contracted by Woon Contractors for earthworks at Fernvale Street.
  2. The sub-contract was on a back-to-back basis with the main contract between Woon Contractors and the Housing and Development Board.
  3. Woon Contractors refused to pay Soon Li Heng the balance sum, alleging failure to comply with the sub-contract terms.
  4. The Housing and Development Board had already paid Woon Contractors for the earthworks done by Soon Li Heng.
  5. Woon Contractors engaged Soil & Foundation (Pte) Ltd to conduct soil tests without the Housing and Development Board's consent.
  6. The Housing and Development Board expressed satisfaction with Soon Li Heng's work and did not require soil tests.
  7. The court found Woon Contractors' expert testimony unreliable and preferred the testimony of Soon Li Heng's witnesses and the Housing and Development Board's representative.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Soon Li Heng Civil Engineering Pte Ltd v Woon Contractors Pte Ltd, Suit 863/2003, [2005] SGHC 34

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Chon Hwa Construction Pte Ltd successfully tendered a contract from the Housing and Development Board for the levelling and construction of Fernvale Street.
A novation agreement was signed between Chon Hwa, the defendant, and the Housing and Development Board.
The defendant sub-contracted the earthworks portion of the project to the plaintiff by a letter of award.
Contract period commenced.
The plaintiff's director signed and returned the sub-contract to the defendant.
The plaintiff set out its method of excavation of earthworks in writing to the defendant.
The plaintiff started work.
Yee requested the defendant to remove the stockpiled earth.
Yee stopped the plaintiff and/or the defendant from taking any more soil from Fernvale Street.
The plaintiff allegedly completed the works under the sub-contract.
The plaintiff made a claim for the balance sum of $629,550 (excluding GST) but less the retention sum of $52,500.
The defendant allegedly engaged another contractor.
The plaintiff wrote to the defendant to request that the latter inform the Board’s engineering department that the plaintiff would no longer be sending soft clay to Changi staging ground.
The plaintiff's solicitors demanded payment of the balance sum.
The defendant applied for an extension of time.
Extended completion date.
Date of the writ.
The plaintiff’s then solicitors gave notice to the defendant’s solicitors of an additional claim for $336,235.50.
The plaintiff’s solicitors wrote to the Housing and Development Board to request for confirmation that the project had been completed and payment had been made to the defendant.
The plaintiff wrote to the Ministry of National Development, requesting that the Housing and Development Board withhold payment to the defendant.
Extended completion date.
The Housing and Development Board replied to the plaintiff’s solicitors.
The Ministry of National Development replied to the plaintiff’s letter.
Surbana’s Certificate of Substantial Completion was dated.
The defendant engaged Soil & Foundation (Pte) Ltd to carry out soil tests at site X.
The Housing and Development Board stated it did not require the defendant to carry out a soil test.
Soil & Foundation (Pte) Ltd conducted second soil test.
The Final Account Certificate issued by Surbana on behalf of the Housing and Development Board was dated.
Allan Poh Chen Seng rendered first report on the soil tests conducted by Soil & Foundation (Pte) Ltd.
Order of Court dated.
Allan Poh Chen Seng rendered second report on the soil tests conducted by Soil & Foundation (Pte) Ltd.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff did not breach the contract.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to comply with terms of sub-contract
      • Failure to carry out works in accordance with terms of contract
  2. Compensation for Delays
    • Outcome: The court found that the defendant was not entitled to compensation for alleged expenses and costs incurred as a result of delay.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to complete works on time
      • Expenses and costs incurred as a result of delay
  3. Reliability of Expert Testimony
    • Outcome: The court found the defendant's expert testimony to be unreliable due to bias and failure to exercise independent judgment.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Independence of expert judgment
      • Expert's duty to court

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Construction Law
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Vita Health Laboratories Pte Ltd v Pang Seng MengN/AYes[2004] 4 SLR 162SingaporeCited regarding the objectivity required of an expert witness under Order 40A of the Rules of Court.
Hoenig v IsaacsN/AYes[1952] 2 All ER 176N/ACited for the principle that a contractor is entitled to be paid even if there are building defects and omissions.
Building & Estates Ltd v A M ConnorN/AYes[1958] MLJ 173N/AFollowed Hoenig v Isaacs, reinforcing the principle that a contractor is entitled to be paid even if there are building defects and omissions.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 40A Rules 2 and 3 Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Earthworks
  • Sub-contract
  • Back-to-back basis
  • Soil tests
  • Lump sum contract
  • Expert witness
  • Dockets
  • Stockpile
  • Excavation
  • Backfilling

15.2 Keywords

  • Earthworks
  • Sub-contract
  • Payment dispute
  • Construction law
  • Singapore
  • High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Construction Law90
Sub-contracts80
Compensation for delays70
Breach of Contract60
Civil Procedure50

16. Subjects

  • Construction Dispute
  • Contract Law
  • Civil Procedure
  • Expert Evidence