Chua Say Eng v Lee Wee Lick Terence: SOPA Adjudication Determination Dispute
In Chua Say Eng (formerly trading as Weng Fatt Construction Engineering) v Lee Wee Lick Terence (alias Li Weili Terence), the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal against an Assistant Registrar's decision regarding an adjudication determination under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (SOPA). The plaintiff, Chua Say Eng, sought to enforce the adjudication determination, while the defendant, Lee Wee Lick Terence, applied to set it aside. Tay Yong Kwang J allowed the defendant's appeal, finding that Payment Claim No. 6 was served out of time, thus setting aside the adjudication determination.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding an adjudication determination under the SOPA. The court allowed the appeal, finding the payment claim was served out of time.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lee Wee Lick Terence (alias Li Weili Terence) | Defendant, Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | |
| Chua Say Eng (formerly trading as Weng Fatt Construction Engineering) | Plaintiff, Respondent | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The plaintiff was engaged by the defendant in August 2008 to convert his two-story house into a three-story house.
- The defendant terminated the contract with the plaintiff via a letter dated 21 April 2010.
- The plaintiff was instructed to vacate the construction site by 12 noon on 26 April 2010.
- The plaintiff served Payment Claim No. 6 on the defendant on 2 June 2010.
- The defendant did not serve a payment response to Payment Claim No. 6.
- The plaintiff served a Notice of Intention to Apply for Adjudication on 18 June 2010.
- The Adjudication Determination was made on 7 July 2010, awarding the plaintiff $125,450.40.
5. Formal Citations
- Chua Say Eng (formerly trading as Weng Fatt Construction Engineering) v Lee Wee Lick Terence (alias Li Weili Terence), Originating Summons No 783 of 2010, [2011] SGHC 109
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff engaged as main contractor. | |
| Defendant terminated contract with plaintiff. | |
| Plaintiff instructed to vacate construction site. | |
| Plaintiff served Payment Claim No 6 on defendant. | |
| Plaintiff served Notice of Intention to Apply for Adjudication. | |
| Plaintiff filed adjudication application with the Singapore Mediation Centre. | |
| Adjudication Determination made, awarding plaintiff $125,450.40. | |
| High Court allowed defendant’s appeal. |
7. Legal Issues
- Validity of Payment Claim
- Outcome: The court found that Payment Claim No. 6 was a valid payment claim under the SOPA with respect to its form and content.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2010] 3 SLR 459
- [2010] 1 SLR 733
- [2009] SGHC 260
- Timeliness of Payment Claim Service
- Outcome: The court held that Payment Claim No. 6 was served out of time, as it was served after the deadline prescribed by reg 5(1) of the SOPR.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2010] NSWCA 190
8. Remedies Sought
- Enforcement of Adjudication Determination
- Monetary compensation
9. Cause of Actions
- Claim for payment for construction works
10. Practice Areas
- Construction Disputes
- Adjudication
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chip Hup Hup Kee Construction Pte Ltd v Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 658 | Singapore | Discussed the jurisdiction of the adjudicator and whether it stems from a properly completed and served payment claim. |
| SEF Construction Pte Ltd v Skoy Connected Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 733 | Singapore | Discussed the court’s role in reviewing adjudication determinations and the essential conditions for a valid determination. |
| Brodyn Pty Ltd v Davenport | New South Wales Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] NSWCA 394 | Australia | Discussed the essential conditions for the existence of an adjudicator's determination under the New South Wales Act. |
| AM Associates (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Laguna National Golf and Country Club Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2009] SGHC 260 | Singapore | Applied the holdings in SEF Construction regarding the validity of payment claims. |
| Sungdo Engineering & Construction (S) Pte Ltd v Italcor Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2010] 3 SLR 459 | Singapore | Discussed whether a letter constituted a payment claim under the SOPA and the requirement for communication of intention. |
| Chase Oyster Bar v Hamo Industries | New South Wales Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] NSWCA 190 | Australia | Discussed the importance of time limits in the New South Wales Act and jurisdictional error. |
| Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission | High Court of Australia | Yes | [2010] HCA 1 | Australia | Discussed the constitutional dimension of the distinction between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional error. |
| Associated Provincial Picture Houses, Limited v Wednesbury Corporation | Not Available | Yes | [1948] 1 KB 223 | England and Wales | Cited in relation to Wednesbury unreasonableness. |
| Fyntray Constructions Pty Ltd v Macind Drainage & Hydraulic Services Pty Ltd | New South Wales Court of Appeal | Yes | [2002] NSWCA 238 | Australia | Cited regarding the interpretation of regulations related to payment claims. |
| Tiong Seng Contractors (Pte) Ltd v Chuan Lim Construction Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 364 | Singapore | First case that went up to the High Court challenging the validity of an adjudicator’s 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 |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Residential Property Act (Cap. 274) | Singapore |
| Building Control Act (Cap. 29) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Adjudication Determination
- Payment Claim
- Payment Response
- Security of Payment Act
- Construction Contract
- Adjudication Application
- Limitation Period
- Progress Payment
15.2 Keywords
- SOPA
- adjudication
- payment claim
- construction
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Construction Law | 90 |
| Security of Payment | 70 |
| Contract Law | 60 |
| Arbitration | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Construction Dispute
- Adjudication
- Security of Payment