Motor Image v SCDA: Dispute over Architect Fees under SIA Conditions of Appointment

Motor Image Enterprises Pte Ltd appealed to the High Court of Singapore against an arbitration award in favor of SCDA Architects Pte Ltd, concerning a dispute over unpaid architectural fees for a retrofitting project at Motor Image's premises. SCDA claimed $334,367.44 in unpaid fees, and the arbitrator largely sided with SCDA. The appeal centered on whether SCDA was entitled to fees based on the lowest tender when the tenders were called using a different set of drawings than initially agreed upon. Prakash J. dismissed the appeal, finding that the arbitrator's decision was not based on an error of law.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Motor Image Enterprises appeals an arbitration award favoring SCDA Architects regarding unpaid fees. The key issue is the calculation of fees based on tender drawings.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
SCDA Architects Pte LtdRespondentCorporationJudgment upheldWon
Motor Image Enterprises Pte LtdAppellantCorporationAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Judith PrakashJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Thio Shen YiTSMP Law Corporation
Tan Sue-AnnTSMP Law Corporation
Jonathan YangTSMP Law Corporation
Davinder SinghDrew & Napier LLC
Alexander LeeDrew & Napier LLC
Tan Siu-LinDrew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

  1. Motor Image engaged SCDA as architects for retrofitting works.
  2. A dispute arose over fees payable to SCDA.
  3. SCDA claimed unpaid fees of $334,367.44.
  4. The arbitrator ordered Motor Image to pay SCDA $463,335 less payment to date.
  5. Motor Image appealed on a question of law regarding fee calculation.
  6. The contract of service was subject to the Appointment Conditions.
  7. SCDA made three submissions of drawings to the Urban Redevelopment Authority.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Motor Image Enterprises Pte Ltd v SCDA Architects Pte Ltd, Originating Summons No 264 of 2009, [2010] SGHC 278

6. Timeline

DateEvent
SCDA appointed as architects for the project.
First submission of drawings to the Urban Redevelopment Authority.
Second submission of drawings to the Urban Redevelopment Authority.
Motor Image received another set of drawings from SCDA.
Final submission of drawings to the Urban Redevelopment Authority.
Written permission for construction obtained from the Urban Redevelopment Authority.
Arbitrator's award issued.
Motor Image granted leave to appeal to the High Court.
SCDA took out a summons asking for leave to appeal against the grant of leave to Motor Image.
Appeal hearing commenced.
Appeal hearing continued.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Entitlement to Architectural Fees
    • Outcome: The court held that the architect was entitled to fees based on the lowest tender.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Interpretation of Contract Clauses
    • Outcome: The court interpreted the Singapore Institute of Architects Conditions of Appointment and Architect’s Services and Mode of Payment.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Issue Estoppel
    • Outcome: The court found that issue estoppel did not apply in this case.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration
  2. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Arbitration
  • Construction Law

11. Industries

  • Construction
  • Automotive

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Wing Joo Loong Ginseng Hong (Singapore) Co Pte Ltd v Qinghai Xinyuan Foreign Trade Co LtdCourt of AppealYes[2009] 2 SLR(R) 814SingaporeCited for the principles of issue estoppel.
Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v MCST Plan No 301Court of AppealYes[2005] 3 SLR(R) 157SingaporeCited for the requirements to establish issue estoppel.
Hong Huat Development Co (Pte) Ltd v Hiap Hong & Co Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2000] 1 SLR(R) 510SingaporeCited regarding the test for granting leave to appeal under the old Arbitration Act.
Tor Line A.B. v. Alltrans Group of Canada Ltd. (The “TFL Prosperity”)High CourtYes[1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 617England and WalesCited to support the contention that granting leave to appeal is not akin to making a concluded decision on the issues.
Hiscox v Outhwaite (No. 2)Court of AppealYes[1991] 1 WLR 545England and WalesCited to support the conclusion that the judge at the leave to appeal stage forms “provisional” views on the merits.
Ng Huat Foundations Pte Ltd v Samwoh Resources Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2006] SGHC 43SingaporeCited as a precedent for allowing challenge of the factual premises of the question of law which the appellant was granted leave to appeal on.
Antaios Compania SA v Salen Rederierna AB (The Antaios)House of LordsYes[1985] AC 191United KingdomCited regarding the function of the leave stage as a time and cost-saving filter against cases which are not even open to serious doubt.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 2002 Rev Ed)Singapore
Planning Act (Cap 232, 1998 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Architectural Fees
  • Tender Drawings
  • Appointment Conditions
  • Total Construction Cost
  • Bona Fide Tender
  • Use Quantum
  • Concurrent Process

15.2 Keywords

  • architect fees
  • arbitration
  • construction
  • singapore
  • contract law
  • tender
  • drawings

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Architects and Engineers Liability85
Breach of Contract80
Contract Law75
Arbitration70
Building and Construction Contracts65
Construction Law60
Professional Negligence50

16. Subjects

  • Construction Dispute
  • Arbitration
  • Contract Law