Lian Teck Construction v Woh Hup: Stay of Proceedings & Interim Payment in Arbitration Dispute
In Lian Teck Construction Pte Ltd v Woh Hup (Pte) Ltd, the High Court of Singapore addressed an appeal regarding whether an application for a stay of proceedings in favor of arbitration should be heard before an application for interim payment. Lian Teck Construction, the plaintiff/appellant, was appointed as an earthworks subcontractor by Woh Hup, the defendant/respondent. After a dispute arose, Lian Teck sought interim payment, while Woh Hup applied for a stay of proceedings in favor of arbitration. The High Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the stay application should be resolved before the interim payment application.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court addressed whether a stay of proceedings for arbitration should be heard before an interim payment application. The court dismissed the appeal.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lian Teck Construction Pte Ltd | Appellant, Plaintiff | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Sean La'Brooy |
| Woh Hup (Pte) Ltd | Respondent, Defendant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Wong Por Luk Paul, Loh Jen Wei |
| Shanghai Tunnel Engineering Co Ltd | Respondent, Defendant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Wong Por Luk Paul, Loh Jen Wei |
| NCC International Aktiebolag | Respondent, Defendant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Wong Por Luk Paul, Loh Jen Wei |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew Ang | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Sean La'Brooy | Wong Partnership |
| Wong Por Luk Paul | Rodyk & Davidson |
| Loh Jen Wei | Rodyk & Davidson |
4. Facts
- The defendants were the main contractors for a Land Transport Authority project.
- The plaintiff was appointed as earthworks subcontractor for the project.
- The defendants gave notice to the plaintiff of partial termination of the subcontract.
- The plaintiff claimed an aggregate amount of $2,560,239.52 for works already performed.
- The plaintiff issued a writ of summons against the defendants claiming the unpaid amount, loss of profits, and special damages.
- The defendants applied for a stay of proceedings in favor of arbitration.
- The plaintiff filed a cross application for interim payment.
5. Formal Citations
- Lian Teck Construction Pte Ltd v Woh Hup (Pte) Ltd and Others, Suit 98/2006, RA 124/2006, [2006] SGHC 118
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Letter of award issued to plaintiff as earthworks subcontractor. | |
| Defendants gave notice to the plaintiff of partial termination of the subcontract. | |
| Plaintiff accepted repudiation of the subcontract. | |
| Plaintiff issued a writ of summons against the defendants. | |
| Defendants entered an appearance in the action. | |
| Defendants filed a summons application seeking a stay of proceedings in favour of arbitration. | |
| Plaintiff filed a cross application for interim payment. | |
| Defendants filed a summons seeking an extension of time to file an affidavit in reply to the plaintiff’s application for interim payment. | |
| Hearing fixed for stay application and interim payment application. | |
| Appeal dismissed. |
7. Legal Issues
- Stay of Proceedings in Favor of Arbitration
- Outcome: The court held that the stay application should be resolved before the interim payment application.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Taking a step in proceedings
- Jurisdiction of the court
- Interim Payment
- Outcome: The court held that it was not sensible to distinguish between an Order 14 Rule 1 application and one under Order 29 Rule 10 in the context of a stay application.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Application on the merits
- Satisfaction of court
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
- Loss of Profits
- Special Damages
- Interim Payment
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Arbitration
- Construction Law
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tropicon Contractors Pte Ltd v Lojan Properties Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1989] SLR 610 | Singapore | Cited for the practice of hearing an Order 14 application and a stay application together. |
| Aoki Corp v Lippoland (Singapore) Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR 609 | Singapore | Cited for the practice of hearing an Order 14 application and a stay application together. |
| Ellis Mechanical Services Ltd v Wates Construction Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | (1976) 2 BLR 60 | United Kingdom | Cited for the test to be applied in cases with an arbitration clause, where judgment can be given for a sum indisputably due. |
| Associated Bulk Carriers Ltd v Koch Shipping Inc | Court of Appeal | Yes | (1978) 7 BLR 22 | United Kingdom | Cited to clarify that summary judgment may only be given where there is an admitted or decided quantified sum with no dispute. |
| Imodco Ltd v Wimpey Major Projects Ltd and Taylor Woodrow International Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | (1987) 40 BLR 1 | United Kingdom | Cited for the proposition that an order for interim payment can be made even if the dispute is to be stayed and referred to arbitration. |
| Samsung Corp v Chinese Chamber Realty Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] 1 SLR 382 | Singapore | Cited for the difficulties arising from the amendment of Order 14 Rule 1 and the court's reasoning that a stay application should be resolved before an Order 14 application. |
| Chinese Chamber Realty Pte Ltd v Samsung Corp | High Court | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR 656 | Singapore | Cited for the difficulties in relation to obtaining summary judgments under Order 14 for contracts which provided for disputes to be referred to arbitration. |
| Yeoh Poh San v Won Siok Wan | High Court | Yes | [2002] 4 SLR 91 | Singapore | Cited for the reasoning that a compromise order requiring a defendant to file a defence while also applying for a stay is inconsistent with logic. |
| British and Commonwealth Holdings Plc v Quadrex Holdings Inc | High Court | Yes | [1989] QB 842 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that the court must be satisfied that the claim would succeed at trial before granting an order for interim payment. |
| Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd v Yuval Insurance Co Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 357 | United Kingdom | Cited for the definition of 'step in the proceedings' as one which impliedly affirms the correctness of the proceedings and the willingness of the defendant to go along with a determination by the Courts of law instead of arbitration. |
| Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraq Airways Co | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 276 | United Kingdom | Cited following Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd v Yuval Insurance Co Ltd on the definition of 'step in the proceedings'. |
| Australian Timber Products Pte Ltd v Koh Brothers Building & Civil Engineering Contractor (Pte) Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2005] 1 SLR 168 | Singapore | Cited following Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd v Yuval Insurance Co Ltd on the definition of 'step in the proceedings'. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) |
| O 29 r 10 Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Stay of proceedings
- Arbitration
- Interim payment
- Subcontract
- Repudiation
- Earthworks
- Rules of Court
- Arbitration Act
15.2 Keywords
- Arbitration
- Stay of proceedings
- Interim payment
- Construction dispute
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Arbitration
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Arbitration Law
- Construction Law