Chip Hup Hup Kee Construction v Ssangyong: Setting Aside Adjudication Determination Under SOP Act

In Chip Hup Hup Kee Construction Pte Ltd v Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co Ltd, the High Court of Singapore addressed the validity of an adjudication determination under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (SOP Act). Chip Hup Hup Kee Construction sought to enforce an unsigned adjudication determination, while Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co Ltd applied to set it aside, arguing it was a draft, unsigned, and served late. The court, Ho May Kim AR, dismissed Ssangyong's application, holding that the delay in service by the Singapore Mediation Centre (SMC) and the lack of a signature did not invalidate the determination. The court considered the purpose of the SOP Act and the roles of the adjudicator and SMC, finding that the determination was valid despite the procedural issues. The claim was related to a payment dispute arising from RC Structural Works Sub-Contract for Tower 1 of the Marina Bay Sands Integrated Resort Project.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application to set aside the Unsigned Adjudication Determination dismissed.

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 considered whether a delay in service and lack of signature invalidated an adjudication determination under the SOP Act. The court dismissed the application to set aside.

1.7 Decision Date

25 November 2009

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Chip Hup Hup Kee Construction Pte Ltd	Claimant, Applicant	Corporation	Application to set aside the Unsigned Adjudication Determination dismissed	Won	Melvin Chan, Jonathan Yang
Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co Ltd	Respondent	Corporation	Application to set aside the Unsigned Adjudication Determination dismissed	Lost	Soh Lip San, Sim Chee Siong, Paul Lie

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Ho May Kim	Assistant Registrar	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Melvin Chan	TSMP Law Corporation
Jonathan Yang	TSMP Law Corporation
Soh Lip San	Rajah & Tann LLP
Sim Chee Siong	Rajah & Tann LLP
Paul Lie	Rajah & Tann LLP

4. Facts

Ssangyong engaged Chip Hup Hup Kee Construction as the RC Structural Works Sub-Contractor.
A payment dispute arose from Progress Claim No.7.
Chip Hup Hup Kee Construction invoked the adjudication process under the SOP Act.
The SMC served the Unsigned Adjudication Determination 18 days after receiving it.
The Adjudicator produced a Signed Adjudication Determination subsequent to the Unsigned Adjudication Determination.
The Signed and Unsigned Adjudication Determinations differed in respect of the cost of sharing of the conference room and the extension of time.
Chip Hup Hup Kee Construction sought to rely solely on the Unsigned Adjudication Determination.

5. Formal Citations

Chip Hup Hup Kee Construction Pte Ltd v Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co Ltd, OS 976/2009, SUM 5184/2009, [2009] SGHC 269

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2007-09-03	Letter of acceptance issued by Ssangyong to Chip Hup Hup Kee Construction.
2008-09-11	Chip Hup Hup Kee Construction invoked the adjudication process.
2008-09-11	Chip Hup Hup Kee Construction lodged an adjudication application with the SMC.
2008-09-18	SMC notified the parties that Ms Lim Ee Ping had been appointed the adjudicator.
2008-09-18	Ssangyong submitted its adjudication response.
2008-09-25	Parties attended an adjudication conference with the Adjudicator.
2008-09-29	Parties submitted their written submissions to the Adjudicator.
2008-09-30	Adjudicator requested the Parties to extend the deadline.
2008-10-01	Parties extended the deadline to 8 October 2008.
2008-10-04	SMC received the Unsigned Adjudication Determination from the Adjudicator.
2008-10-06	Adjudicator sent an email to the Parties regarding the cost of the room.
2008-10-07	Chip Hup Hup Kee Construction replied to the Adjudicator's email.
2008-10-09	Ssangyong replied to the Adjudicator's email.
2008-10-13	Adjudicator sent the Signed Adjudication Determination to the SMC.
2008-10-14	SMC served the Signed Adjudication Determination on the Parties.
2008-10-15	Ssangyong's solicitors wrote to the SMC enquiring when the Signed Adjudication Determination was received.
2008-10-22	SMC served the Unsigned Adjudication Determination on the Parties.
2009-09-09	Chip Hup Hup Kee Construction was granted leave of Court to enforce the Unsigned Adjudication Determination.
2009-10-02	Ssangyong filed a summons seeking to set aside the Unsigned Adjudication Determination.
2009-11-26	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Validity of Adjudication Determination
- Outcome: The court held that the delay in service and lack of signature did not invalidate the adjudication determination.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Delay in service of adjudication determination
  - Lack of signature on adjudication determination
- Related Cases:
  - [2009] SGHC 257
  - [2004] NSWCA 394
  - [2004] NSWCA 395
  - [2005] NSWSC 77
  - [2003] SLT 740
  - [2003] EWHC 3100
  - [2006] EWHC 3413
  - [2007] EWHC 1055
  - [2007] EWHC 2420

8. Remedies Sought

Setting aside the Unsigned Adjudication Determination
Setting aside the Order of Court granting leave to enforce the Unsigned Adjudication Determination

9. Cause of Actions

Enforcement of Adjudication Determination
Setting Aside of Adjudication Determination

10. Practice Areas

Construction Law
Adjudication

11. Industries

Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
SEF Construction Pte Ltd v Skoy Connected Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2009] SGHC 257	Singapore	Applied the principles for setting aside an adjudication determination under the SOP Act, focusing on basic requirements for a valid determination.
Brodyn v Davenport	New South Wales Court of Appeal	Yes	[2004] NSWCA 394	Australia	Cited for the view that an adjudicator's determination must satisfy essential conditions laid down by the relevant Act to have legal effect.
Transgrid v Siemens Ltd & Anor	New South Wales Court of Appeal	Yes	[2004] NSWCA 395	Australia	Cited for the principle that review is available only where the determination is not a determination within the meaning of the Act.
Coordinated Construction Co v J M Hargreaves and Ors	New South Wales Supreme Court	Yes	[2005] NSWSC 77	Australia	Cited for the view that factors considered in determining whether a determination was reviewable were anterior rather than interior.
St. Andrews Bay Development Ltd v HBG Management Ltd	Scottish Court	Yes	[2003] SLT 740	Scotland	Discussed the duty to communicate the decision to the parties, even if the statute is silent on the communication of the decision.
Barnes & Elliot Ltd v Taylor Woodrow Holdings Ltd	English High Court	Yes	[2003] EWHC 3100	England	Discussed the importance of timely communication of the decision and the consequences of delay.
Cubitt Building & Interiors Ltd v Fleetglade Ltd	English High Court	Yes	[2006] EWHC 3413	England	Cited for the tolerance of a one-day delay in the service of an adjudication determination.
Mott MacDonald Limited v London & Regional Properties Limited	English High Court	Yes	[2007] EWHC 1055	England	Cited for the view that a signature was not a necessary step that had to be taken for a decision to be reached.
Treasure & Son Limited v Martin Dawes	English High Court	Yes	[2007] EWHC 2420	England	Cited for the view that a signature was not required and not necessary on any commercial or practicable basis for the adjudicator to reach a determination.

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
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) s 27(5)	Singapore
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) s 17(8)	Singapore
Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) s 9A	Singapore
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act s 4	Singapore
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act s 10	Singapore
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act s 13	Singapore
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act s 14	Singapore
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act ss 17(1) and (2)	Singapore
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act s 16(3)	Singapore
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act s 28 (4) (a)	Singapore
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act s 13(1)	Singapore
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act s 13(4)	Singapore
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act s 14(1)	Singapore
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act s 14(3)	Singapore
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act s 15(4)	Singapore
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act s 18(5)	Singapore
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act s 18(6)	Singapore
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act s 28 (4)	Singapore
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act s 22(1)(a)	Singapore
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act s 22(2)(a)	Singapore
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act s 18(2)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Adjudication Determination
Security of Payment Act
Singapore Mediation Centre
Unsigned Adjudication Determination
Signed Adjudication Determination
Service of Adjudication Determination
Authorised Nominating Body

15.2 Keywords

Adjudication
SOP Act
Construction
Payment Dispute
Singapore
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act

16. Subjects

Construction Dispute
Adjudication
Contract Law

17. Areas of Law

Building and Construction Law
Dispute Resolution
Alternative Dispute Resolution