Hon Industries v Wan Sheng Hao: SOPA Adjudication Determination Set Aside Application

Hon Industries Pte Ltd applied to the High Court of Singapore to set aside an adjudication determination in favor of Wan Sheng Hao Construction Pte Ltd under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (SOPA). The dispute arose from development works at MacRitchie Reservoir Park. Hon Industries argued that the payment claim was invalid, served out of time, and that the adjudicator breached natural justice. The High Court dismissed the application, finding no grounds to set aside the adjudication determination.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Hon Industries sought to set aside an adjudication determination in favor of Wan Sheng Hao under the SOPA. The application was dismissed.

1.7 Decision Date

15 November 2011

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Hon Industries Pte Ltd	Plaintiff	Corporation	Application Dismissed	Lost	Julian Sebastian Lim Huat Sing of JLim & Chew Law Corporation
Wan Sheng Hao Construction Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Adjudication Determination Upheld	Won	Lim Ker Sheon of Characterist LLC Wee Qian Liang of Characterist LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Eunice Chua	Assistant Registrar	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Julian Sebastian Lim Huat Sing	JLim & Chew Law Corporation
Lim Ker Sheon	Characterist LLC
Wee Qian Liang	Characterist LLC

4. Facts

Plaintiff appointed the defendant to carry out development works at MacRitchie Reservoir Park.
Disputes arose, and the defendant largely ceased work by December 2010.
Defendant served Progress Claim No. 8 on the plaintiff for $672,569.97 on 31 March 2011.
Plaintiff did not pay, and the defendant filed an adjudication application.
Adjudicator found in favor of the defendant, ordering the plaintiff to pay the claimed sum plus interest and costs.
Plaintiff applied to set aside the adjudication determination.

5. Formal Citations

Hon Industries Pte Ltd v Wan Sheng Hao Construction Pte Ltd, Originating Summons No 628 of 2011, [2011] SGHC 247

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2010-04-12	Letter of award issued by the plaintiff to the defendant.
2010-12-01	Defendant largely ceased work on the site.
2011-03-31	Defendant served Progress Claim No. 8 on the plaintiff.
2011-04-12	Plaintiff served a letter on the defendant, claiming it was a valid payment response.
2011-04-19	Defendant filed adjudication application SOP/AA059.
2011-04-27	Adjudicator appointed.
2011-04-29	Plaintiff served its adjudication response.
2011-05-04	Adjudication Conference held.
2011-05-26	Adjudicator issued an adjudication determination in favour of the defendant.
2011-06-28	Defendant obtained leave to enforce the Adjudication Determination.
2011-07-25	Plaintiff took out an application to set aside the Adjudication Determination.
2011-11-16	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Validity of Payment Claim
- Outcome: The court held that Progress Claim No. 8 was a valid payment claim under the SOPA.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2010] 1 SLR 658
  - [2010] 1 SLR 733
  - [2010] 3 SLR 459
  - [2011] SGHC 109
  - [2004] NSWCA 394
  - [2009] SGHC 260
  - [2010] NSWCA 190
Timeliness of Payment Claim
- Outcome: The court held that Progress Claim No. 8 was served on time.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2011] SGHC 109
Breach of Natural Justice
- Outcome: The court held that there was no breach of natural justice.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2007] 3 SLR 86
  - [1999] 2 NZLR 452
  - [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 514
  - [2010] 1 SLR 733

8. Remedies Sought

Setting aside of Adjudication Determination

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

Construction Litigation
Arbitration

11. Industries

Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Chip Hup Hup Kee v Ssangyong Engineering & Construction	High Court	Yes	[2010] 1 SLR 658	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a party may assert lack of jurisdiction at any stage and cannot be estopped from doing so.
SEF Construction Pte Ltd v Skoy Connected Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2010] 1 SLR 733	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the service issue may be a jurisdictional issue.
Sungdo Engineering & Construction (S) Pte Ltd v Italcor Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2010] 3 SLR 459	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the service issue may be a jurisdictional issue and for the requirements of a valid payment claim.
Chua Say Eng (formerly trading as Weng Fatt Construction Engineering) v Lee Wee Lick Terence (alias Li Weili Terence)	High Court	Yes	[2011] SGHC 109	Singapore	Cited for the interpretation of section 10(2) of the SOPA and regulation 5(1) of the SOP Regulations regarding the timeliness of payment claims.
Brodyn Pty Ltd v Davenport	New South Wales Court of Appeal	Yes	[2004] NSWCA 394	Australia	Cited for discussion on the basic and essential requirements for the existence of an adjudicator’s determination.
AM Associates (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Laguna National Golf and Country Club Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2009] SGHC 260	Singapore	Cited for the principle that whether a purported payment claim is actually a payment claim under the SOPA is an issue for the adjudicator.
Chase Oyster Bar v Hamo Industries	New South Wales Court of Appeal	Yes	[2010] NSWCA 190	Australia	Cited for a less restrictive approach towards the question of what constitutes a jurisdictional issue in the context of an application to set aside an adjudication determination.
Associated Provincial Picture Houses, Limited v Wednesbury Corporation	Not specified	Yes	[1948] 1 KB 223	England and Wales	Cited for the standard of Wednesbury unreasonableness.
Soh Beng Tee & Co Pte Ltd v Fairmount Development Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 3 SLR 86	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an award should be read generously and only meaningful breaches of natural justice that have actually caused prejudice are ultimately remedied.
Trustees of Rotoaira Forest Trust v Attorney-General	New Zealand High Court	Yes	[1999] 2 NZLR 452	New Zealand	Cited for the principle that fairness is a question of fact and degree to be determined in the individual case.
Fox v PG Wellfair Ltd	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 514	England and Wales	Cited regarding breach of natural justice.
Chip Hup Hup Kee Construction Pte Ltd v Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2008] SGHC 159	Singapore	Cited regarding natural justice.
Chua Say Eng (formerly trading as Weng Fatt Construction Engineering) v Lee Wee Lick Terence @ Li Weili Terence	High Court	Yes	[2010] SGHC 333	Singapore	Cited regarding service issue.

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
s 10(1) of the SOPA	Singapore
s 10(2) of the SOPA	Singapore
s 10(3) of the SOPA	Singapore
s 10(4) of the SOPA	Singapore
s 16(3)(c) of the SOPA	Singapore
s 2 of the SOPA	Singapore
s 3 of the SOPA	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Adjudication Determination
Payment Claim
Progress Claim
Security of Payment Act
Natural Justice
Jurisdiction
Construction Contract
Progress Payment
Rectification Works

15.2 Keywords

SOPA
Adjudication
Construction
Payment Claim
Natural Justice

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act	95
Construction Law	90
Building and Construction Contracts	85
Contract Law	70
Administrative Law	40
Arbitration	30

16. Subjects

Construction Dispute
Arbitration
Contract Law