SEF Construction v Skoy Connected: Security of Payment Act Adjudication Dispute
In a dispute between SEF Construction Pte Ltd and Skoy Connected Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore, on 17 November 2009, addressed the court's powers under Section 27 of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act. SEF Construction appealed against a decision regarding an adjudication determination in favor of Skoy Connected. The court dismissed the appeal, clarifying the limited scope of judicial review in such cases and emphasizing adherence to the principles of natural justice.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
1.3 Case Type
Building and Construction Law
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court addressed the scope of the court's powers under Section 27 of the Security of Payment Act in an adjudication dispute between SEF Construction and Skoy Connected.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEF Construction Pte Ltd | Plaintiff, Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Skoy Connected Pte Ltd | Defendant, Appellant | Corporation | Judgment Upheld | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Judith Prakash | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- SEF Construction engaged Skoy Connected as a subcontractor for aluminium and glass works.
- A dispute arose between the parties regarding payment for the work done.
- Skoy sent SEF Payment Claim No 4 for $250,344.45.
- Skoy lodged an adjudication application with the Singapore Mediation Centre.
- The adjudicator determined that SEF must pay Skoy $185,167.58.
- SEF applied to set aside the adjudication determination, alleging breaches of natural justice and failure to properly value the claim.
5. Formal Citations
- SEF Construction Pte Ltd v Skoy Connected Pte Ltd, OS 20/2009, RA 29/2009, [2009] SGHC 257
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Skoy sent SEF Payment Claim No 4 | |
| Skoy sent SEF its Payment Claim No 4 | |
| SEF's Payment Certificate dated | |
| Skoy served a Notice of Intention to Apply for Adjudication on SEF | |
| Skoy lodged an adjudication application with the Singapore Mediation Centre | |
| SEF lodged its Adjudication Response with the SMC | |
| Parties to submit their written submissions | |
| Parties to submit their reply submissions | |
| Adjudication Determination issued | |
| Adjudication Determination served on the parties | |
| SEF applied to set aside the Adjudication Application | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Compliance with Natural Justice
- Outcome: The court held that the adjudicator's failure to discuss all submissions in the adjudication determination was not a breach of natural justice.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to consider all submissions
- Adequacy of reasons for determination
- Scope of Court's Powers under s 27(5) of the SOP Act
- Outcome: The court clarified that its role is limited to supervising the appointment and conduct of the adjudicator, not reviewing the merits of the determination.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Judicial review of adjudication determinations
- Interim vs. final determinations
- Validity of Adjudication Application
- Outcome: The court determined that whether the adjudication application met the requirements was a matter for the adjudicator to decide.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Compliance with r 7(2)(d) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Regulations
- Discrepancy between amounts claimed in the Adjudication Application and the Payment Claim
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside of the adjudication determination
9. Cause of Actions
- Claim for payment of construction work done
10. Practice Areas
- Construction Litigation
- Adjudication
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company BQ v Company BR | N/A | Yes | [2006] SGSOP 13 | Singapore | Cited regarding discrepancies between amounts claimed in the Adjudication Application and the Payment Claim. |
| Soh Beng Tee & Co Pte Ltd v Fairmount Development Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR 86 | Singapore | Cited for the essential principles of natural justice. |
| Chip Hup Hup Kee Construction Pte Ltd v Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2008] SGHC 159 | Singapore | Cited regarding the application of natural justice principles in the context of the SOP Act. |
| Macob Civil Engineering Ltd v Morrison Construction Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1999] CLC 739 | England | Cited regarding the intention of Parliament to introduce a speedy mechanism for settling disputes in construction contracts. |
| Timwin Construction Pty Limited v Façade Innovations Pty Limited | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | [2005] NSWSC 548 | New South Wales | Cited regarding the failure to consider duly made submissions as a failure to exercise powers under the SOP Act in good faith and a breach of natural justice. |
| Lanskey v Noxequin | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | [2005] NSWSC 963 | New South Wales | Cited regarding the failure to engage in a bona fide exercise of power and failure to accord natural justice. |
| Trysams Pty Ltd v Club Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | [2007] NSWSC 941 | New South Wales | Cited regarding the setting aside of an adjudication determination based on the adjudicator's power not being exercised in a bona fide manner and natural justice not being accorded. |
| Reiby Street Apartments v Winterton Constructions | N/A | Yes | [2006] NSSC 375 | New South Wales | Cited regarding the failure to consider duly made submissions as a failure to exercise powers under the SOP Act in good faith and a breach of natural justice. |
| Brodyn v Davenport | N/A | Yes | [2004] NSWCA 394 | New South Wales | Cited regarding the basic requirement of a valid adjudication determination being a bona fide attempt by the adjudicator to exercise the relevant power relating to the subject matter of the legislation. |
| Roberts v Hopwood | N/A | Yes | [1925] AC 578 | N/A | Cited regarding the requirement to act in good faith. |
| Shellbridge Pty Ltd v Rider Hunt Sydney Pty Ltd | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | [2005] NSWSC 1152 | New South Wales | Cited regarding the statutory intention that an adjudicator should work quickly. |
| Brookhollow Pty Ltd v. R&R Consultants Pty Ltd | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | [2006] NSWSC 1 | New South Wales | Cited regarding the inference that an adjudicator has overlooked a critical issue and failed to give consideration to the parties’ submissions. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Adjudication Determination
- Adjudication Application
- Payment Claim
- Payment Response
- Security of Payment Act
- Natural Justice
- Adjudicated Amount
- Adjudication Review
- Jurisdictional Issues
15.2 Keywords
- Security of Payment Act
- Adjudication
- Construction Law
- Natural Justice
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Construction Law | 90 |
| Building and Construction Contracts | 85 |
| Arbitration | 50 |
| Administrative Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Construction Dispute
- Adjudication
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure