Cheng Song Chuan v Chin Ivan: Project Management Contract Dispute over Payment and Repudiation

In the High Court of Singapore, Cheng Song Chuan (trading as Trade Sources Enterprise) sued Chin Ivan for repudiation of a project management contract and for payment of a dishonoured cheque. The court, presided over by Lai Siu Chiu J, dismissed the defendant's appeals against the summary judgment granted to the plaintiff for $201,978 under the Bills of Exchange Act. However, the court varied the order by setting aside the interlocutory judgment and directed that the issues of misrepresentation and repudiation of contract go for trial.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeals dismissed in part and allowed in part. Final judgment awarded to the plaintiff for the sum of $201,978. Interlocutory judgment set aside and issues of misrepresentation and repudiation of contract directed to go for trial.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court addressed a dispute over a project management contract, involving claims of repudiation and payment for services rendered. The court dismissed the appeals.

1.7 Decision Date

18 March 2008

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Chin Ivan	Defendant, Appellant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed in Part	Lost	Paul Wong of Rodyk & Davidson LLP Daryl Ong of Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Cheng Song Chuan (trading as Trade Sources Enterprise)	Plaintiff, Respondent	Individual	Judgment for Plaintiff	Won	Eugene Tan of Drew & Napier LLC Nicholas Lauw of Drew & Napier LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Lai Siu Chiu	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Paul Wong	Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Daryl Ong	Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Eugene Tan	Drew & Napier LLC
Nicholas Lauw	Drew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

The defendant appointed the plaintiff as project manager for the design and construction of two houses.
The plaintiff appointed Strategic Design International as the architects.
The plaintiff rendered an invoice to the defendant for 35% of the fee, totaling $201,978.
The defendant issued a cheque for the invoice amount but later countermanded payment.
The plaintiff treated the defendant's actions as repudiation of the contract.
The defendant alleged that the plaintiff misrepresented that the design team was under the plaintiff’s organization.
The defendant claimed that the plaintiff failed to prepare and/or call for a tender.

5. Formal Citations

Cheng Song Chuan (trading as Trade Sources Enterprise) v Chin Ivan, Suit 490/2007, RA 338/2007, 388/2007, [2008] SGHC 39

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2006-11-28	Letter of appointment from the defendant to the plaintiff was signed.
2006-12-04	Provisional permission by URA for the project was issued for the properties.
2007-03-14	Provisional permission by URA for the project was issued for the properties.
2007-04-03	Plaintiff rendered an invoice to the defendant for $201,978.
2007-04-04	Defendant issued the plaintiff a cheque for the invoice amount.
2007-04-09	Plaintiff was informed that the defendant had countermanded payment on the cheque.
2007-05-03	Plaintiff's solicitors gave notice of the dishonour of the cheque and demanded payment.
2007-05-25	Defendant's solicitors denied that the plaintiff had carried out any work that justified payment.
2007-06-28	Plaintiff accepted the defendant's repudiation of the letter of appointment.
2007-08-06	Writ of summons issued.
2007-09-04	Defendant filed his defence.
2007-11-07	Final judgment was awarded against the defendant in the sum of $201,978.00 with interest and costs.
2008-03-19	The court dismissed the appeals in part and allowed in part.

7. Legal Issues

Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court directed that the issue of repudiation of contract go for trial.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Repudiation of contract
Illegality of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that the provisions of the Architects Act and the Professional Engineers Act were irrelevant to the plaintiff's claim.
- Category: Substantive
Failure of Consideration
- Outcome: The court found the defence of partial consideration unsustainable.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Partial failure of consideration
  - Total failure of consideration
Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court directed that the issue of misrepresentation go for trial.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages
Rescission of Contract
Declaration that the defendant had validly rescinded the letter of appointment

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract
Debt (Dishonoured Cheque)

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Invar Realty Pte Ltd v Kenzo Tange Urtec Inc	High Court	Yes	[1990] SLR 791	Singapore	Cited regarding the court's discretion to allow amendments even after judgment.
Midlink Development Pte Ltd v The Stansfield Group Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2004] 4 SLR 258	Singapore	Cited regarding the court's discretion to allow amendments after judgment.
Sim Tony v Lim Ah Ghee	High Court	Yes	[1994] 3 SLR 224	Singapore	Cited for the proposition that the court cannot assist in the enforcement of an illegal contract and would take cognizance of an illegality even when it was not pleaded.
BEP Akitek (Pte) v Pontiac Land Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[1992] 1 SLR 251	Singapore	Cited to argue that the plaintiff was precluded from recovering the invoice amount because he was neither a registered architect nor registered engineer.
Skilling John B& Ors v Consolidated Hotels Ltd	High Court	Yes	[1978-1979] SLR 137	Singapore	Cited to argue that the plaintiff was precluded from recovering the invoice amount because he was neither a registered architect nor registered engineer.
Wong Bark Chuan David v Man Financial (S) Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2007] 2 SLR 22	Singapore	Cited for the proposition that contravention of ss 11 and 12 of the Architects Act and PE Act respectively were questions of law and need not be pleaded.
Development Bank of Singapore Ltd v Bok Chee Seng Construction Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2002] 3 SLR 547	Singapore	Cited for the proposition that contravention of ss 11 and 12 of the Architects Act and PE Act respectively were questions of law and need not be pleaded.
Banner Investments Pte Ltd v Hoe Seng Metal Fabrication & Engineers (S) Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[1997] 1 SLR 461	Singapore	Cited for the proposition that contravention of ss 11 and 12 of the Architects Act and PE Act respectively were questions of law and need not be pleaded.
WBG Network (S) Pte Ltd v Sunny Daisy Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 1 SLR 1133	Singapore	Cited regarding the admission of new evidence at Registrar’s Appeals.
Lassiter Ann Masters v To Keng Lam	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2004] 2 SLR 392	Singapore	Cited regarding the admission of new evidence at Registrar’s Appeals.
Ladd v Marshall	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1954] 1 WLR 1489	England and Wales	Cited regarding the admission of new evidence at Registrar’s Appeals.
Nova (Jersey) Knit v Kammagarn Spinnerei Gmbh	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1977] 1 WLR 713	England and Wales	Cited regarding the defence of partial consideration.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 14 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2006 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Bills of Exchange Act (Cap 23, 2004 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Architects Act (Cap 12, 2000 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Professional Engineers Act (Cap 253, 1992 Rev Ed)	Singapore
The Building Control Act (Cap 29, 2004 Rev Ed	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Project manager
Letter of appointment
Repudiation
Tender documents
Provisional permission
Construction costs
Design team
Invoice amount
Architectural services
Professional engineering services

15.2 Keywords

project management
contract
repudiation
payment
dishonoured cheque
illegality
misrepresentation

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Contract Law	90
Civil Procedure	70
Misrepresentation	60

16. Subjects

Contract Dispute
Civil Procedure
Project Management