Boonchai Sompolpong v Low Tuck Kwong: Architectural Services Dispute

In Boonchai Sompolpong v Low Tuck Kwong, the High Court of Singapore addressed a dispute over unpaid architectural services. Boonchai Sompolpong, an architect, sued Low Tuck Kwong for fees related to the Joondalup Project in Australia and the Balikpapan Project in Indonesia. The court, presided over by Justice Philip Pillai, found that Low Tuck Kwong had accepted Boonchai Sompolpong's designs and was therefore liable for professional fees under the Singapore Institute of Architects (SIA) Terms. The exact amount of damages, including interest, was to be determined by the Registrar.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Architect Boonchai Sompolpong sued Low Tuck Kwong for unpaid architectural services for projects in Australia and Indonesia. The court found in favor of the plaintiff.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Boonchai SompolpongPlaintiffIndividualJudgment for PlaintiffWonSankaran Karthikeyan, George John
Low Tuck KwongDefendantIndividualClaim DismissedLostSiraj Omar

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Philip PillaiJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Sankaran KarthikeyanToh Tan LLP
George JohnToh Tan LLP
Siraj OmarPremier Law LLC

4. Facts

  1. The plaintiff, an architect, agreed to provide architectural services for two projects.
  2. The projects were a residential house in Perth, Australia (Joondalup Project) and a condominium complex in Balikpapan, Indonesia (Balikpapan Project).
  3. The defendant made payments totaling S$50,000 to the plaintiff.
  4. The plaintiff claimed the defendant accepted the designs, triggering payment obligations under SIA Terms.
  5. The defendant argued the S$50,000 was a rejection fee for non-accepted designs.
  6. The court found the defendant's conduct indicated acceptance of the designs.
  7. The court determined the SIA Terms were incorporated into the agreement.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Boonchai Sompolpong v Low Tuck Kwong, Suit No 499 of 2009, [2010] SGHC 266

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Plaintiff offered architectural services for the Joondalup Project.
Plaintiff met with the defendant regarding the Joondalup Project.
Plaintiff issued first invoice for the Joondalup Project.
Plaintiff set out terms of engagement for the Balikpapan Project.
Balikpapan Scheme No. 1 produced.
Balikpapan Scheme No. 2 produced.
Joondalup Scheme No. 3 produced.
Balikpapan Scheme No. 3 produced.
Joondalup Scheme No. 4 produced.
Balikpapan Scheme No. 4 produced.
Plaintiff issued receipt for payment and further invoice for Joondalup Project.
Defendant's representative indicated approval of Balikpapan designs.
Plaintiff instructed to appoint local architect for Balikpapan Project.
Joondalup Scheme No. 5 produced.
Defendant's representative stated Joondalup design was acceptable.
Joondalup Scheme No. 6 produced.
Defendant likely to let plaintiff see through Joondalup Project.
Defendant open to plaintiff providing total services for Joondalup Project.
Joondalup Scheme No. 7 produced.
Defendant's representative chasing planning authority in Balikpapan.
Balikpapan Scheme No. 6 produced.
Joondalup Scheme No. 8 produced.
Plaintiff attended Joondalup Country Club celebration.
Joondalup Scheme No. 9 produced.
Plaintiff gave breakdown of revised budget for Joondalup Project.
Plaintiff proposed lump sum fee for Joondalup Project.
Approval received for Balikpapan Scheme No. 6.
Plaintiff repeated request for lump sum fee for Joondalup Project.
Plaintiff informed defendant of completed designs for both projects.
Balikpapan Project building plans approved.
Plaintiff sent letters to defendant regarding project designs and fees.
Defendant's secretary requested details of proposed fees.
Plaintiff provided details of scope of work and amount to be billed.
Yap informed plaintiff that defendant was willing to pay S$50,000.
Defendant responded to proposed fee structure, alleging designs were not accepted.
Plaintiff amended Statement of Claim to reflect reduced claim for Joondalup Project.
Notes of Evidence.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that the defendant had accepted the plaintiff's designs, thus establishing a contractual obligation to pay for the services rendered.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to pay for services rendered
      • Interpretation of contract terms
  2. Acceptance of Design
    • Outcome: The court determined that the defendant's conduct and communications indicated acceptance of the plaintiff's designs for both projects.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Application of Singapore Institute of Architects (SIA) Terms
    • Outcome: The court ruled that the SIA Terms were incorporated into the contract by express reference and were applicable in determining the professional fees due to the plaintiff.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages
  2. Interest Payments

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Construction Law

11. Industries

  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Australian Timber Products Pte Ltd v Koh Brothers Building and Civil Engineering Contractor (Pte) LtdN/AYes[2005] 1 SLR(R) 168SingaporeCited regarding the mootness of arbitration proceedings in light of the trial.

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

  • Architectural Services
  • Singapore Institute of Architects Terms
  • Joondalup Project
  • Balikpapan Project
  • Progress Payment
  • Acceptance of Design
  • Professional Fees

15.2 Keywords

  • architect
  • contract
  • singapore
  • construction
  • design
  • SIA Terms
  • Joondalup
  • Balikpapan

16. Subjects

  • Contract Dispute
  • Architectural Services
  • Construction Law

17. Areas of Law

  • Contract Law
  • Building and Construction Law
  • Architectural Services