SKK (S) Pte Ltd v Management Corporation: Repainting Contract Dispute over Paint Specifications and Payment

SKK (S) Pte Ltd, a paint manufacturer, sued Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1166 in the High Court of Singapore, Lai Siu Chiu J presiding, judgment date 2011-09-26, for failing to fully pay for repainting and repair works at Mandarin Gardens Condominium. The dispute centered on whether certain variations proposed by SKK in a letter dated 2007-12-31 were incorporated into the contract. The court found in favor of SKK, holding that the variations were part of the contract and that the Management Corporation's counterclaim was without merit. The court awarded damages to SKK for unpaid work, prolongation costs, and wrongful call on a performance guarantee.

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

Paint manufacturer SKK sues Management Corp for unpaid repainting work. Court finds in favor of SKK, enforcing contract variations and awarding damages.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
SKK (S) Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationJudgment for PlaintiffWon
Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1166DefendantCorporationCounterclaim DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lai Siu ChiuJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Tan Heng KhimSankar Ow & Partners
Sunita Sonya ParharS S Parhar & Co
Sankar SaminanthanSankar Ow & Partners
Tan Liam BengDrew & Napier LLC
Sandra Tan Pei MayDrew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

  1. SKK (S) Pte Ltd contracted with Management Corporation to perform repainting and repair works at Mandarin Gardens.
  2. A dispute arose over whether certain variations proposed by SKK in a letter were incorporated into the contract.
  3. The Management Corporation refused to make full payment for the works.
  4. The Management Corporation called on the performance guarantee.
  5. The court found that the variations proposed by SKK were part of the contract.
  6. The court found that the Management Corporation wrongfully called on the performance guarantee.
  7. The court found that the Management Corporation delayed the works by delaying approval of repair lists.

5. Formal Citations

  1. SKK (S) Pte Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1166, Suit No 1022 of 2009, [2011] SGHC 215

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Paint manufacturers invited to quote for repainting works.
Council advised to combine repainting with spalling concrete repairs.
Decision to appoint building surveyors as project manager.
CC Building Surveyors Pte Ltd recommended as project manager.
Council accepted recommendation of CC Building Surveyors Pte Ltd.
Contractors invited for site show-around.
Tender closed.
SKK submitted tender with variations.
Tenders opened.
SMC meeting to evaluate tenders.
Council members emailed Casimir’s analyses of the quotations.
CCBS instructed to award contract to SKK.
Council meeting where supplementary report was submitted.
Defendant paid plaintiff 25% deposit.
Exhibition held to highlight paint types.
Plaintiff furnished performance bond.
Works commenced.
First site meeting.
Works at Block 3 completed and inspected.
Annual General Meeting of the defendant convened.
Clerk of works appointed.
Defendant alleged breaches of contract by plaintiff.
Plaintiff gave formal notice of claim for extension of time.
Plaintiff complained about non-payment of progress claims.
Defendant's solicitors wrote to CCBS alleging failure to discharge duties.
Works 16 weeks behind schedule.
Services of CCBS terminated.
Building Appraisal Pte Ltd appointed.
Plaintiff informed Chin of extension of time claim.
Plaintiff's letter regarding unpaid progress claims.
Chin issued Building Surveyor’s Direction no. 4.
Chin replied to plaintiff's letter claiming valid grounds to withhold payment.
Plaintiff submitted final claim.
Defendant called on performance guarantee.
Defendant paid plaintiff $258,163.07.
Chin issued Delay Certificate.
Chin withdrew Delay Certificate.
Plaintiff commenced suit.
Court visited the estate.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that the defendant breached the contract by failing to make full payment for the works and by not adhering to the agreed-upon variations.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to make full payment
      • Failure to adhere to agreed-upon variations
  2. Extension of Time
    • Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to an extension of time due to delays in approval of repair lists and inclement weather.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Delays in approval of repair lists
      • Inclement weather
  3. Performance Bond
    • Outcome: The court found that the defendant's call on the performance guarantee was wrongful as the plaintiff had completed the works and payments were due.
    • Category: Substantive
  4. Incorporation of Contractual Terms
    • Outcome: The court held that the terms set out in the plaintiff's letter dated 2007-12-31 were part of the contract between the parties.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages
  2. Refund of Performance Guarantee

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Construction Disputes

11. Industries

  • Construction
  • Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Zurich Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd v B-Gold Interior Design & Construction Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2008] 3 SLR(R) 1029SingaporeDistinguished; cited by the defendant to argue against the incorporation of extrinsic evidence to interpret the contract, but the court found it inapplicable as the plaintiff was arguing for a variation of the contract.
Amixco Asia Pte Ltd v Bank Bumiputra Malaysia BhdHigh CourtYes[1992] 2 SLR 943SingaporeCited for the principle that a party contending that a condition precedent has not been duly performed must specifically plead that condition and its non-performance.
Lian Soon Construction Pte Ltd v Guan Qian Realty Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[1999] 3 SLR(R) 518SingaporeCited for the principle that an architect's decision on extensions of time has significant financial implications and cannot be easily changed without good reason.
Tropican Contractors Pte Ltd v Lojan Properties Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[1989] 1 SLR (R) 591SingaporeCited to illustrate the principle that an architect cannot unilaterally revise an extension of time previously granted.
Bina Puri Sdn Bhd v MUI Continental Insurance Bhd (formerly known as MUI Continental Insurance Sdn Bhd)High CourtYes[2010] 1 MLJ 347MalaysiaCited by the defendant for the argument that the plaintiff had failed to prove a causal link between the inclement weather and the delay in the Works, but the court rejected this argument.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Building Control Act (Cap 29, 1999 Rev Ed)Singapore
Rules of Court (Cap 322, r 5 2006 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Repainting
  • Spalling Concrete
  • Performance Bond
  • Extension of Time
  • Prolongation Costs
  • Defects Liability Period
  • SIA Conditions
  • Lump Sum Contract
  • Provisional Sum
  • Delay Certificate

15.2 Keywords

  • Repainting
  • Contract
  • Singapore
  • Construction
  • Performance Bond
  • Extension of Time
  • Damages

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Breach of Contract90
Contract Law85
Construction Law75
Contractual Disputes70
Building Contract65
Warranties60
SIA Conditions of Contract55
Damages50
Evidence40
Property Law30
Summary Judgement20
Estoppel15
Affidavits10

16. Subjects

  • Construction Dispute
  • Contract Law
  • Civil Litigation