Fongsoon Engineering v Kensteel Engineering: Sub-Contract Works Dispute

Fongsoon Engineering (S) Pte Ltd sued Kensteel Engineering Pte Ltd in the High Court of Singapore, seeking payment for sub-contract works and variations. Kensteel Engineering counterclaimed for expenses incurred assisting Fongsoon Engineering to complete the works. The court, presided over by Justice Belinda Ang Saw Ean, found that Fongsoon Engineering was in breach of contract for failing to complete the works within a reasonable time. The court ordered Fongsoon Engineering to pay Kensteel Engineering $8,645.55 after setting off the amounts due to each party. The judgment was delivered on 6 April 2011.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Defendant in the sum of $8,645.55.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Fongsoon Engineering sued Kensteel Engineering for moneys due under a lump sum contract. The court found Fongsoon Engineering liable to Kensteel Engineering for $8,645.55.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Kensteel Engineering Pte LtdDefendantCorporationJudgment for DefendantWon
Fongsoon Engineering (S) Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationLiable to the defendant under its CounterclaimLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Belinda Ang Saw EanJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Wong Yoong PhinWong Yoong Phin & Co
Joseph IgnatiusIgnatius J & Associates

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiff claimed moneys due under a lump sum contract for the fabrication and erection of the main structure of the Su Tu Vang switchgear.
  2. Defendant counterclaimed for expenses incurred in rendering assistance to the plaintiff to complete the Sub-Contract Works.
  3. The contract gave the plaintiff a total of ten weeks to complete the Sub-Contract Works, and time would start to run from the commencement of the work.
  4. The plaintiff commenced work on 22 February 2007.
  5. The Sub-Contract Works were only completed on 11 August 2007.
  6. The defendant was late in supplying some of the steel to the worksite.
  7. The plaintiff is claiming a substantial amount for variations works requested by the defendant.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Fongsoon Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Kensteel Engineering Pte Ltd, Suit No. 67 of 2008, [2011] SGHC 82

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Defendant sent an e-mail to the plaintiff attaching the terms and conditions and the schedule of work.
Plaintiff quoted a total price of $480,000 excluding GST.
Defendant e-mailed its Letter of Intent to the plaintiff.
Plaintiff replied, accepting the contract with additional terms.
Defendant replied to the plaintiff with its comments.
Plaintiff commenced work.
Plaintiff signed the Contract.
Defendant completed its supply of steel material.
Survey report prepared by Yuly Satiawan on the adequacy of the calculations relating to the floor of the building structure.
Defendant sent a letter by fax to the plaintiff complaining about the unevenness of the floor framing.
Defendant sent the plaintiff an e-mail attaching its bill for $69,911.13 in respect of its first counterclaim.
Statement of account sent by the plaintiff to the defendant.
Judgment Reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff was in breach of its obligation to complete the Sub-Contract Works within a reasonable time.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to complete work within a reasonable time
  2. Variation Orders
    • Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff was not entitled to payment of any of its claims for variation works since there were no written instructions from the defendant.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Moneys due under a lump sum contract

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Construction Disputes
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Dodd v ChurtonQueen's Bench DivisionYes[1897] 1 QB 562England and WalesCited regarding an employer not being allowed to insist on completion by the due date if he was responsible for part of the delay.
Trollope & Colls v North West Metropolitan Regional Hospital BoardHouse of LordsYes[1973] 1 WLR 601England and WalesCited regarding an employer not being allowed to insist on completion by the due date if he was responsible for part of the delay.
Peak Construction (Liverpool) Ltd v McKinney Foundations LtdN/AYes(1970) 1 BLR 114N/ACited regarding the contractor having to complete the works within a reasonable period even when time for completion is at large.
Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd v London Borough of LambethN/AYes[2002] 1 BLR 288N/ACited regarding how courts have determined the period of reasonable time.
John Doyle Construction Ltd v Laing Management (Scotland) LtdN/AYes2004 S.L.T. 678ScotlandCited regarding the need to aver and prove the causal connections between the events and the loss and expense.
Browne v DunnN/AYes(1893) 6 R 57N/ACited regarding the principle that the plaintiff has accepted Francis Ng’s evidence on this issue.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Sub-Contract Works
  • Lump Sum Contract
  • Variation Orders
  • Letter of Intent
  • Progress Claims
  • Steel Supply
  • Construction Plans
  • Stop Work Order
  • Reasonable Time
  • Defective Flooring
  • Padeye Box Stiffeners

15.2 Keywords

  • construction
  • contract
  • engineering
  • sub-contract
  • breach of contract
  • variation
  • singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Breach of Contract90
Contract Law85
Construction Law75
Construction70
Contractual terms65
Damages50
Building and Construction Contracts40

16. Subjects

  • Construction Dispute
  • Contract Law