Doo Ree Engineering v Taisei Corp: SOP Act & Permissibility of Repeat Payment Claims

In Doo Ree Engineering & Trading Pte Ltd v Taisei Corp, the High Court of Singapore, on 2009-09-25, dismissed Doo Ree's application to set aside an adjudication determination. The central legal issue was the permissibility of multiple payment claims for the same progress payment under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (SOP Act). The court held that the SOP Act does not permit the service of repeat claims, supporting the adjudicator's decision to dismiss Doo Ree's application.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Doo Ree Engineering's application to set aside an adjudication determination was dismissed, addressing the permissibility of repeat payment claims under the SOP Act.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Doo Ree Engineering & Trading Pte LtdApplicantCorporationApplication dismissedLost
Taisei CorpRespondentCorporationApplication dismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Nathaniel KhngAssistant RegistrarYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Neo Kim Cheng MonicaTSMP Law Corporation
Tan Yeow HiangKelvin Chia Partnership

4. Facts

  1. Doo Ree was appointed as a sub-contractor by Taisei for MRT station construction.
  2. Taisei terminated Doo Ree's appointment due to delays.
  3. Doo Ree submitted multiple payment claims for work on the Bukit Brown station.
  4. Taisei refuted the claims, arguing they were repeat claims.
  5. The adjudicator dismissed Doo Ree's application, deeming the claim an invalid repeat claim.
  6. Doo Ree conceded that the March 2009 Claim was a repeat claim.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Doo Ree Engineering & Trading Pte Ltd v Taisei Corp, OS 846/2009, [2009] SGHC 218

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Taisei appointed Doo Ree as its sub-contractor for reinforced concrete works to the Botanic Garden station.
Taisei appointed Doo Ree as its sub-contractor for reinforced concrete works to the Bukit Brown station.
Doo Ree commenced works to the Botanic Garden station.
Doo Ree commenced works to the Bukit Brown station.
Taisei terminated Doo Ree’s appointment as its sub-contractor for both the Botanic Garden station and the Bukit Brown station.
Doo Ree submitted a payment claim to Taisei in respect of the Bukit Brown station.
The November 2008 Claim was submitted for adjudication in SOP AA/87 of 2008.
Adjudicator determined that the application for adjudication was premature, and, on this basis, the application was dismissed.
Doo Ree submitted a fresh payment claim in respect of the Bukit Brown station.
Taisei submitted its payment response, in which the January 2009 Claim was refuted.
Doo Ree submitted another payment claim in respect of the Bukit Brown station.
Doo Ree submitted the March 2009 Claim for adjudication in SOP AA/56 of 2009.
Taisei provided its adjudication response.
Doo Ree submitted written submissions to the Adjudicator.
The application for adjudication was dismissed by the Adjudicator.
The application was dismissed with brief grounds provided.
Full grounds for the decision were provided.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Permissibility of repeat payment claims under the SOP Act
    • Outcome: The court held that the SOP Act does not permit the service of repeat claims.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2005] NSWSC 1152
      • [2009] NSWCA 69
      • [2008] 2 Qd R 117

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Setting aside the adjudication determination

9. Cause of Actions

  • No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Construction Law
  • Arbitration

11. Industries

  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Shellbridge Pty Ltd v Rider Hunt Sydney Pty LtdSupreme Court of New South WalesYes[2005] NSWSC 1152New South WalesCited for the interpretation of sections 13(5) and 13(6) of the NSW Act regarding multiple payment claims.
Dualcorp Pty Ltd v Remo Constructions Pty LtdNew South Wales Court of AppealYes[2009] NSWCA 69New South WalesCited for the interpretation of section 13(5) of the NSW Act, prohibiting more than one payment claim in respect of each reference date.
Doolan v Rubikcon (Qld) Pty LtdQueensland CourtYes[2008] 2 Qd R 117QueenslandCited for the interpretation of the Queensland Act regarding multiple claims in respect of the same reference date.
Chip Hup Hup Kee Construction Pte Ltd v Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co LtdHigh CourtYes[2008] SGHC 159SingaporeCited for the scope of applications to set aside an adjudication determination.
Taisei Corp v Doo Ree Engineering & Trading Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2009] SGHC 156SingaporeCited regarding applications to set aside adjudication determinations.
Tiong Seng Contractors (Pte) Ltd v Chuan Lim Construction Pte LtdSingapore Law ReportsYes[2007] 4 SLR 364SingaporeCited for the SOP Act being modeled on similar legislation in other jurisdictions.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed)Singapore
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999New South Wales
Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004Queensland

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Adjudication Determination
  • Payment Claim
  • Repeat Claim
  • Progress Payment
  • SOP Act
  • Reference Date

15.2 Keywords

  • SOP Act
  • Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act
  • Repeat Claims
  • Payment Claims
  • Adjudication
  • Construction Law
  • Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act90
Construction Law75
Contract Law60
Statutory Interpretation50

16. Subjects

  • Construction Dispute
  • Arbitration
  • Contract Law