Teo Chin Lam v Lead Management Engineering: Res Judicata in Construction Subcontract Dispute

In Teo Chin Lam v Lead Management Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal regarding the application of res judicata. The plaintiff, Teo Chin Lam, a subcontractor, filed a second suit against the defendant, Lead Management Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd, a construction company, for work related to the MSD project. The court, Lai Siu Chiu J, allowed the appeal, striking out the plaintiff's claim, finding it an abuse of process under the extended doctrine of res judicata.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed with costs; the plaintiff’s claim was struck out.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding res judicata in a construction subcontract dispute. The court struck out the second action, finding it an abuse of process.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Teo Chin LamPlaintiff, AppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Lead Management Engineering & Construction Pte LtdDefendant, RespondentCorporationAppeal AllowedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lai Siu ChiuJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Andrew HanamAndrew & Co
Kenny KhooAscentsia Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. The plaintiff was the defendant’s subcontractor for seven projects between June 2006 and February 2007.
  2. The defendant issued seven purchase orders to the plaintiff totalling $709,950.12 for the MSD project.
  3. The defendant claimed it had paid the plaintiff $640,050 in respect of all the works done.
  4. The plaintiff commenced Suit No. 370 of 2007 against the defendant on 15 June 2007 claiming $394,447.12.
  5. The defendant paid the plaintiff $397,664.42 and a notice of discontinuance for the first action was filed.
  6. The plaintiff commenced DC Suit No. 3286 of 2007 against the defendant claiming $188,151.00.
  7. The defendant disputed the claim on the basis that it had paid the plaintiff his claim for the MSD project in the first action in full and final settlement.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Teo Chin Lam v Lead Management Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd, DC Suit 3286/2007, RAS 77/2008, [2009] SGHC 23

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Oral contract allegedly made between the plaintiff and the defendant’s assistant general manager Yeo Peng Kiat Avery.
Plaintiff was the defendant’s subcontractor for seven projects between June 2006 and February 2007.
Plaintiff's invoices for the MSD project.
Defendant issued seven purchase orders to the plaintiff totalling $709,950.12 for the MSD project.
Defendant issued seven purchase orders to the plaintiff totalling $709,950.12 for the MSD project.
Plaintiff received periodic payments from the defendant up to invoices dated 18 November 2006.
Meeting between the plaintiff and Roy regarding adjusted figures for the 23 quotations.
Plaintiff sent the Defendant an invoice for $66,885.35.
Plaintiff was the defendant’s subcontractor for seven projects between June 2006 and February 2007.
Plaintiff commenced Suit No. 370 of 2007 against the defendant claiming the sum of $394,447.12.
Defendant entered an appearance to the writ.
Defendant’s solicitors offered on a “without prejudice” basis to pay the plaintiff $350,000 in full and final settlement of his claim.
Defendant forwarded to the plaintiff’s solicitors a cheque for $396,447.12 in full payment of the sum claimed plus costs of $2,000.
Defendant’s solicitors forwarded a fresh cheque as replacement in the sum of $397,664.42 to the latter.
A notice of discontinuance for the first action was then filed.
Plaintiff commenced DC Suit No. 3286 of 2007 against the defendant.
The second action proceeded to trial.
The striking-out application was heard and dismissed by the district judge.
The defendant appealed to a judge in chambers in RAS No. 77 of 2008.
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Res Judicata
    • Outcome: The court held that the doctrine of res judicata applied, barring the plaintiff from making his claim.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Abuse of process
      • Issue estoppel
    • Related Cases:
      • [1843-1860] All ER 378
      • [2002] 2 AC 1
      • [1947] 2 ALL ER 255
      • [2007] 1 SLR 453
      • [2001] 3 SLR 41

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Construction Dispute

11. Industries

  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Henderson v HendersonN/AYes[1843-1860] All ER 378N/ACited for the doctrine of res judicata in the extended sense, barring claims that could have been raised in an earlier suit.
Johnson v Gore Wood & Co (a firm)N/AYes[2002] 2 AC 1N/AAddressed the issue of whether res judicata applied and discussed the purpose of the rule to protect against harassment from repeated actions.
Greenhalgh v MallardN/AYes[1947] 2 ALL ER 255N/ACited for the principle that res judicata covers issues or facts that could have been raised in earlier proceedings.
Goh Nellie v Goh Lian TeckN/AYes[2007] 1 SLR 453SingaporeCited for the principle that the defence of abuse of process applies when an issue ought to have been raised and was not.
Lee Hiok Tng (personal capacity) v Lee Hiok Tng (representative capacity)Court of AppealYes[2001] 3 SLR 41SingaporeCited for the principle that the extended sense of res judicata is based on the concept of abuse of process.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Res judicata
  • Subcontractor
  • Purchase order
  • Final Claim
  • Abuse of process
  • Issue estoppel

15.2 Keywords

  • Res judicata
  • construction
  • subcontract
  • Singapore
  • High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Res Judicata95
Civil Practice75
Breach of Contract50
Contract Law50

16. Subjects

  • Construction Dispute
  • Civil Procedure
  • Contract Law