U-Hin Manufacturing v BT Engineering: Dispute over Unpaid Invoices for Vessel Construction

U-Hin Manufacturing Pte Ltd, U-Hin Engineering Pte Ltd, and Wong Manufacturing Pte Ltd sued BT Engineering Pte Ltd and BGL Engineering Pte Ltd in the High Court of Singapore on 18 August 2010, claiming $1,823,258.49 for unpaid invoices related to the construction of a topside module for a vessel. The court, presided over by Lai Siu Chiu J, dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, finding that a compromise agreement had been reached between the parties, settling all outstanding accounts. The court also awarded judgment to the defendants on their counterclaim.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiffs' claims dismissed with costs; judgment for defendants on counterclaim.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

U-Hin Manufacturing sued BT Engineering for unpaid invoices. The court dismissed the claim, finding a compromise agreement settled all accounts.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
U-Hin Manufacturing Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationClaim DismissedLost
U-Hin Engineering Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationClaim DismissedLost
Wong Manufacturing Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationClaim DismissedLost
BT Engineering Pte LtdDefendantCorporationJudgment on CounterclaimWon
BGL Engineering Pte LtdDefendantCorporationJudgment on CounterclaimWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lai Siu ChiuJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Mathiew Christophe RajooDennisMathiew
Low Yi YangRajah & Tann LLP
Mark Tan Chai MingRajah & Tann LLP

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiffs claimed for unpaid invoices for labor and services supplied to the first defendant.
  2. Plaintiffs and first defendant had a history of subcontracting projects.
  3. A Compromise Agreement was signed between the parties to settle all outstanding invoices and claims.
  4. The plaintiffs repaid the first advance of $152,000 in part performance of the Compromise Agreement.
  5. The plaintiffs gave credit for the defendants' third advance of $312,000 in the first amendment to the statement of claim.
  6. The plaintiffs' invoice for $663,400 was never sent to the defendants and was fabricated.
  7. The defendants made an Offer to Settle to the plaintiffs, which was not accepted.

5. Formal Citations

  1. U-Hin Manufacturing Pte Ltd and others v BT Engineering Pte Ltd and another, Suit No 893 of 2008, [2010] SGHC 240
  2. Gay Choon Ing v Loh Sze Ti Terence Peter, , [2009] 2 SLR(R) 332

6. Timeline

DateEvent
BT Engineering Pte Ltd incorporated
BGL Engineering Pte Ltd incorporated
BT Engineering Pte Ltd sold to Universal Compression Holdings Inc
Credit note CN027/2007/UHIN/BT issued
Credit note CN001/2008/UHIN/BT issued
IRAS appointed BT Engineering Pte Ltd as agent of U-Hin Engineering Pte Ltd under GST Act
Advance payment made by defendants to plaintiffs
Advance payment made by defendants to plaintiffs
Advance payment made by defendants to plaintiffs
BT Engineering remitted payment to IRAS as agent of U-Hin Engineering
Advance payment made by defendants to plaintiffs
Compromise Agreement signed
Payment of $197,995.20 made by defendants to second plaintiff
Plaintiffs repaid $152,000 on advance
PO37556 for $254,010.51 issued
PO issued by first defendant to second plaintiff for $237,393 coupled with payment
Plaintiffs gave credit for defendants' advance of $312,000
PO issued to first plaintiff for $389,600
Defendants made Offer to Settle to plaintiffs
Judgment reserved
Addendum to Judgment

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court did not make a specific ruling on breach of contract, as the claims were dismissed based on the compromise agreement.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Substandard workmanship
      • Failure to provide skilled workers
  2. Validity of Compromise Agreement
    • Outcome: The court held that the Compromise Agreement was valid and enforceable, satisfying all requirements of a valid contract.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Identifiable agreement
      • Consideration
      • Intention to create legal relations
    • Related Cases:
      • [2009] 2 SLR(R) 332

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Construction
  • Oil and Gas

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Gay Choon Ing v Loh Sze Ti Terence PeterCourt of AppealYes[2009] 2 SLR(R) 332SingaporeCited for the essential requirements of a compromise agreement, including an identifiable agreement, consideration, and an intention to create legal relations.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 22A r 9(3)(b) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Unpaid invoices
  • Topside module
  • Compromise Agreement
  • Credit notes
  • Advances
  • Purchase orders
  • Settlement sum
  • Variation claims

15.2 Keywords

  • unpaid invoices
  • construction
  • compromise agreement
  • settlement
  • contract

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Contract Law80
Breach of Contract75
Commercial Disputes60
Summary Judgement30
Estoppel25
Duty to Account20
Mistake20
Rescission15
Misrepresentation15
Commercial Fraud10
Costs10
Company Law5
Bankruptcy5

16. Subjects

  • Construction Dispute
  • Contract Law
  • Compromise Agreement