Yap Boon Keng Sonny v Pacific Prince: Breach of Contract & Defective Construction
In Yap Boon Keng Sonny v Pacific Prince International Pte Ltd and William Lau Hui Lay, the High Court of Singapore heard a case involving a breach of contract and negligence claim by Sonny Yap Boon Keng against Pacific Prince International Pte Ltd (PPI) and William Lau Hui Lay. Yap alleged delays in construction, defective works, and undersized bedrooms in his new house. The court found PPI liable for delay, breach of contract regarding bedroom sizes, and certain defects. William Lau was also found liable for breach of duty of care. The court awarded damages to Yap, with the specific amount to be assessed, and allowed PPI's counterclaim for outstanding payments, subject to set-off.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff in part; damages to be assessed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Breach of contract case involving defective construction of a house. Court found contractor liable for delay, undersized bedrooms, and defects.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yap Boon Keng Sonny | Plaintiff | Individual | Judgment for Plaintiff in part | Partial | |
| Pacific Prince International Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Counterclaim Allowed | Won | |
| William Lau Hui Lay | Defendant | Individual | Judgment for Plaintiff in part | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Judith Prakash | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Winston Quek | B T Tan & Company |
| Brendon Choa | ACIES Law Corporation |
4. Facts
- Plaintiff contracted with PPI for the design and construction of a three-story semi-detached house.
- The MOA stipulated a completion date of 15 December 2005.
- The house was handed over on 15 March 2006.
- Four bedrooms were smaller than the specified 18m² to 19m².
- Plaintiff alleged numerous defects in the construction.
- Plaintiff refused PPI access to rectify the defects.
- Second defendant did not fully explain the design and build contract's implications.
5. Formal Citations
- Yap Boon Keng Sonny v Pacific Prince International Pte Ltd and Another, Suit 49/2007, [2008] SGHC 161
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Initial discussions regarding the project and requirements for the house. | |
| PPI carried out initial Design and Contract Work. | |
| Plaintiff and PPI signed a memorandum of agreement (MOA). | |
| Works commenced. | |
| Plaintiff met with Jennifer Yeo of Artwood Pte Ltd. | |
| Original completion date specified in the MOA. | |
| Commencement date of ID works amended. | |
| Temporary occupation permit (TOP) was granted. | |
| PPI informed the plaintiff of completion and that the property was ready to be handed over. | |
| Plaintiff took possession of the property. | |
| Certificate of Statutory Completion (CSC) was issued. | |
| Joint inspection of defects took place. | |
| PPI sent the plaintiff an Architect’s Assessment. | |
| PPI sent a Revised Rectification and Touchup List. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that PPI breached the contract by failing to complete the works on time, providing bedrooms of inadequate size, and performing defective work.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Defective Works
- Delay in Completion
- Failure to meet specifications
- Negligence
- Outcome: The court found that William Lau breached his duty of care to the plaintiff by failing to provide complete advice and failing to disclose his conflict of interest.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Negligent Misrepresentation
- Breach of Duty of Care
- Conflict of Interest
- Damages
- Outcome: The court awarded nominal damages for delay, damages for loss of amenity, and ordered an assessment of damages for the cost of rectifying defects.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Measure of Damages
- Loss of Amenity
- Cost of Rectification
8. Remedies Sought
- Cost of Rectification
- Cost of Reconstructing Bedrooms
- Damages for Delay
- Loss of Use
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Negligence
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Construction Disputes
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kwang In Tong Chinese Temple v Fong Choon Hung Construction Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR 876 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an act of prevention results in the scheduled completion date ceasing to apply and the employer's right to claim liquidated damages is lost. |
| Sunny Metal & Engineering Pte Ltd v Ng Khim Ming | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR 853 | Singapore | Cited regarding the use of market rental value as a measure of loss of use of property. |
| Sunny Metal & Engineering Pte Ltd v Ng Khim Meng Eric | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR 782 | Singapore | Cited regarding the proximity required to establish a duty of care in tort. |
| Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth | House of Lords | Yes | [1995] 3 WLR 118 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that damages should compensate for loss sustained and not provide a gratuitous benefit, and that the cost of reinstatement should be proportionate to the loss suffered. |
| Kea Holdings Pte Ltd v. Gan Boon Hock | High Court | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR 129 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of the tort of deceit. |
| Trans World (Aluminium) Ltd v Cornelder China (Singapore) | High Court | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR 501 | Singapore | Cited regarding the principle that mere silence or non-disclosure of material fact is not misrepresentation when there is no fiduciary duty or contract requiring uberimae fides. |
| Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR 100 | Singapore | Cited for the two-stage test for determining whether a duty of care exists. |
| Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [1964] AC 465 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a special relationship in tort can arise between two parties so as to impose a duty on one to avoid making negligent misstatements to the other. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Factories Act (Cap 104 1998 Rev. Ed.) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, Rev Ed 1994) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Design and Build Contract
- Defective Works
- Delay in Completion
- Loss of Amenity
- Rectification Works
- Memorandum of Agreement
- REDAS Conditions
- Handover Certificate
- Architect's Assessment
- Variation Orders
15.2 Keywords
- breach of contract
- defective construction
- negligence
- design and build
- construction defects
- delay
- architect
- Singapore
- building
- house
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Contract Dispute
- Construction Dispute
- Negligence
- Architectural Services