TTJ Design v Chip Eng Seng: Striking Out Pleadings for Lack of Causation in Construction Sub-Contract Dispute
TTJ Design and Engineering Pte Ltd, the plaintiff, sued Chip Eng Seng Contractors (1988) Pte Ltd, the defendant, in the High Court of Singapore, for the sum of $9,384,577.31 being the balance due for work done on a sub-contract and for additional works and/or variations. The defendant applied to strike out 33 paragraphs of the Statement of Claim. Steven Chong J dismissed the defendant's appeal against the Assistant Registrar's decision, finding that the defendant's 'forest pleading' argument was misconceived.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
TTJ Design sued Chip Eng Seng for sums due under a construction sub-contract. The court dismissed Chip Eng Seng's application to strike out pleadings.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
TTJ Design and Engineering Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Chung Khoon Leong John |
Chip Eng Seng Contractors (1988) Pte Ltd | Defendant, Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Chew Chang Min |
3. Judges
Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
---|---|---|
Steven Chong | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
Counsel Name | Organization |
---|---|
Chung Khoon Leong John | Kelvin Chia Partnership |
Chew Chang Min | Chancery Law Corporation |
4. Facts
- The defendant was the main contractor for The Pinnacle@Duxton project.
- The plaintiff was engaged as the sub-contractor for the supply, fabrication, delivery and installation of steel link bridges.
- A dispute arose in connection with the balance sums due from the Sub-Contract.
- The original sub-contract was for a lump sum of $10,290,000.00.
- The defendant had already approved and paid the plaintiff $17,243,948.10.
- The project consultants issued more than 900 new/revised drawings for the link bridges.
- The plaintiff claimed the new/revised drawings fundamentally altered the original design.
5. Formal Citations
- TTJ Design and Engineering Pte Ltd v Chip Eng Seng Contractors (1988) Pte Ltd, Suit No 563 of 2010 (Registrar's Appeal No 460 of 2010), [2011] SGHC 12
6. Timeline
Date | Event |
---|---|
Letter of Award ref: CES/P@D/CONT/003 issued | |
Suit commenced | |
Defence filed | |
Reply filed | |
Defendant's application filed | |
Appeal heard | |
Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Striking Out Pleadings
- Outcome: The court dismissed the application to strike out the pleadings.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action
- Pleadings may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action
- Forest pleadings
- Lack of causal nexus between breach and loss
- Waiver of Contractual Clause
- Outcome: The court noted the plaintiff's argument that the defendant had waived strict compliance with clause 12 of the sub-contract or was estopped from asserting otherwise.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Strict compliance with contractual terms
- Estoppel
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Claim for additional works and/or variations
10. Practice Areas
- Construction Litigation
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bernhard’s Rugby Landscapes Ltd v Stockley Park Consortium Ltd | N/A | Yes | (1997) 82 BLR 39 | N/A | Cited to define the term 'forest pleading' in the context of construction claims. |
Wharf Properties and another v Eric Cumine Associates, Architects, Engineers and Surveyors | N/A | Yes | [1991] 52 BLR 1 | N/A | Cited regarding the need to establish a nexus between breach and loss, but found not applicable to the present case. |
Petromec Inc v Petroleo Brasileiro SA | N/A | Yes | [2007] EWHC 1589 | N/A | Cited regarding the need to establish a causal nexus for additional works claims, but found not applicable to the present case. |
13. Applicable Rules
Rule Name |
---|
No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
---|---|
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
O 18 r 19(1) of the Rules | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Sub-Contract
- Link bridges
- Variations
- Forest pleading
- Causal nexus
- Statement of Claim
- Rules of Court
- Additional works
- Design changes
- Lump sum contract
15.2 Keywords
- construction
- sub-contract
- pleadings
- striking out
- causation
- variations
16. Subjects
- Construction Dispute
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Construction Law
- Contract Law