Jaya Sarana Engineering v GIB Automation: Breach of Contract & Fire Alarm System Installation Dispute
Jaya Sarana Engineering Pte Ltd sued GIB Automation Pte Ltd in the High Court of Singapore, alleging breach of contract for failing to pay the balance contract sum and additional costs for variation/additional works related to a fire alarm system installation at Singapore Management University. GIB Automation counterclaimed for damages due to Jaya Sarana's alleged breaches. The court, Sundaresh Menon JC presiding, found both parties partially liable. Jaya Sarana was granted interlocutory judgment for the balance contract sum, subject to deductions for work completed by GIB Automation. GIB Automation was found liable for breach of contract for failing to provide necessary drawings, and Jaya Sarana was granted interlocutory judgment with damages to be assessed. The defendant's counterclaim was largely dismissed.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Interlocutory judgment granted in favor of the plaintiff for the balance contract sum subject to an omission to be valued representing the cost of the labour supplied by the defendant to complete the work.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Jaya Sarana Engineering sued GIB Automation for breach of contract regarding a fire alarm system installation. The court found both parties liable and ordered damages to be assessed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jaya Sarana Engineering Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Interlocutory judgment granted | Partial | |
| GIB Automation Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Counterclaim dismissed | Dismissed |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Jaya Sarana Engineering and GIB Automation entered into an agreement on 10 March 2004 for fire alarm system works at SMU.
- The agreed lump sum price for the contract was $310,000.
- Jaya Sarana Engineering subcontracted the material portions of the works to Wing Lee Electrical Service for $170,000.
- GIB Automation sent its own workers to the site to assist Jaya Sarana Engineering due to manpower shortage.
- Jaya Sarana Engineering claimed $186,000 as the balance contract sum and $125,330 for variation/additional works.
- GIB Automation counterclaimed for $472,542.04 for alleged breaches of contract by Jaya Sarana Engineering.
- The court bifurcated the trial, with the first tranche focused on liability.
5. Formal Citations
- Jaya Sarana Engineering Pte Ltd v GIB Automation Pte Ltd, Suit 1/2006, [2007] SGHC 49
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Agreement entered into between Jaya Sarana Engineering and GIB Automation for fire alarm system works at SMU. | |
| GIB Automation sent letters to Jaya Sarana Engineering highlighting shortage of workers. | |
| GIB Automation sent letters to Jaya Sarana Engineering highlighting shortage of workers. | |
| Overall completion date for the SMU project. | |
| Jaya Sarana Engineering began actively writing to GIB Automation. | |
| Relationship between the parties became strained. | |
| Letter from Donald Cheo accepting that workers engaged by GIB Automation were on site. | |
| Jaya Sarana Engineering notified GIB Automation about AI/275 work. | |
| Jaya Sarana Engineering submitted a summary of the variation claim for the SMU Project. | |
| Suit initiated by Jaya Sarana Engineering against GIB Automation. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found both parties liable for breach of contract.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to provide approved shop drawings
- Failure to pay balance contract sum
- Failure to abide by work schedule
- Failure to provide a competent full-time English-speaking supervisor
- Failure to increase the number of workers
- Failure to deliver project installations on time
- Failure to assist in testing and commissioning of fire alarm system
- Related Cases:
- [2006] 3 SLR 769
- Implied Term
- Outcome: The court found that there was an implied term in the contract that the defendant would do all things necessary and reasonable to enable the plaintiff and its workers to perform the contract.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2006] 3 SLR 769
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Construction Law
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GIB Automation Pte Ltd v Deluge Fire Protection (SEA) Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2007] SGHC 48 | Singapore | Cited for background information on the deterioration of the commercial relationship between the parties. |
| Jet Holding Ltd & ors v Cooper Cameron (Singapore) Pte Ltd & Another and other Appeals | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 3 SLR 769 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of implied terms in a contract. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Fire alarm system
- Sub-contract
- Balance contract sum
- Variation works
- Abortive works
- Manpower shortage
- Site supervisor
- Lump sum contract
- Shop drawings
- Omission
15.2 Keywords
- breach of contract
- fire alarm system
- construction
- singapore
- high court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Breach of Contract | 90 |
| Contract Law | 85 |
| Construction Law | 70 |
| Construction Contracts | 65 |
| Commercial Disputes | 60 |
| Building and Construction Contracts | 60 |
| Damages | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Contract Dispute
- Construction Dispute