Econ Corp Ltd v Econ-NCC JV: Dispute over Equipment Supply for Mass Transit System Construction

Econ Corp Ltd and Econ Industries Pte Ltd (the plaintiffs) sued Econ-NCC JV (the defendant) in the High Court of Singapore, before Lai Siu Chiu J, regarding a dispute over equipment supplied for civil engineering works on the Mass Transit System. The plaintiffs claimed outstanding rental and a declaratory order for the return of sumi-decking. The defendant withdrew its counterclaim. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal against the Assistant Registrar's orders, but awarded costs to the plaintiffs.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Econ Corp Ltd and Econ Industries Pte Ltd sued Econ-NCC JV over a dispute about equipment supplied for Mass Transit System construction. The court dismissed the appeal and awarded costs to the plaintiffs.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Econ Corp LtdPlaintiffCorporationAppeal DismissedLost
Econ Industries Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationAppeal DismissedLost
Econ-NCC JVDefendantPartnershipAppeal DismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lai Siu ChiuJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Tan Cheow HinCH Partners
John WangRobert Wang & Woo LLC

4. Facts

  1. Econ Corp Ltd and Econ Industries Pte Ltd supplied equipment to Econ-NCC JV for civil engineering works.
  2. The equipment was for the construction of two stations for the Mass Transit System.
  3. The plaintiffs claimed outstanding rental for the sumi-decking delivered.
  4. The defendant withdrew its counterclaim.
  5. The plaintiffs filed a statement of claim (Amendment No. 2) without leave of court.
  6. The defendant applied to amend the defence to clarify its position on the return of the sumi-decking.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Econ Corp Ltd and Another v Econ-NCC JV, Suit 786/2006, RA 180/2008, [2008] SGHC 205

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Letter of acceptance of the defendant’s tender from the Land Transport Authority
Agreement made between the first plaintiff and the defendant to rent metal decking
Agreement made between the second plaintiff and the defendant to rent sumi-decking
Solicitors' letter from the defendant
Plaintiffs’ writ of summons was filed
Defendant’s original Defence and Counterclaim was filed
Amended Defence and Counterclaim Amendment No. 1 was filed
Amendment No 2 to Defence and Counterclaim was filed
Defendant's application filed
Defendant's application first came on for hearing
Plaintiffs obtained leave of court to file the statement of claim (Amendment No. 1)
Registrar’s Appeal No. 390 of 2007 (“the plaintiffs’ appeal”) heard
Defence (Amendment No. 3) filed
Statement of claim (Amendment No. 2) filed
Defendant applied to court for leave to file Amendment No. 3 to the Defence
Amendment application heard and granted by the court below
Defendants to file and serve the Defence (Amendment No. 4)
Plaintiffs to file and serve the Reply (Amendment No. 2)
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Amendment of Pleadings
    • Outcome: The court allowed the defendant to amend its defence, finding that the plaintiffs would not be prejudiced by the amendments.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Leave to amend
      • Prematurity of claims
    • Related Cases:
      • [1994] 1 SLR 513
      • [1987] 1 AC 189

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages
  2. Declaratory Order

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Wright Norman v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp LtdHigh CourtYes[1994] 1 SLR 513SingaporeCited for the submission that amendment of pleadings would be allowed, subject to penalties in costs, unless the amendment would cause injustice and/or injury to the opposing party which could not be compensated by costs or otherwise.
Ketteman v Hansel PropertiesHouse of LordsYes[1987] 1 AC 189England and WalesCited for the submission that amendment of pleadings would be allowed, subject to penalties in costs, unless the amendment would cause injustice and/or injury to the opposing party which could not be compensated by costs or otherwise.
Dawson v Great Central Railway CompanyN/ANo(1919) 121 LT 263N/ACited to support the contention that admissions in a defence in one action are not binding in other proceedings between the same parties on a different issue.
British Thomson-Houston Co v British Insulated & Helsby CablesN/ANo[1924] 1 Ch 203N/ACited to support the contention that admissions in a defence in one action are not binding in other proceedings between the same parties on a different issue.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 18 r 19 of the Rules of Court Revised 2006 edition
O 20 r 8 of the Rules
O 27 r 3 of the Rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of Court Revised 2006 editionSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Sumi-decking
  • Amendment of pleadings
  • LTA Contract
  • Premature claim
  • Registrar's Appeal

15.2 Keywords

  • equipment supply
  • mass transit system
  • sumi-decking
  • amendment of pleadings
  • civil engineering works

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Civil Practice90
Breach of Contract60
Contracts60
Construction Law50
Equipment Supply40

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Contract Dispute