Lee Wee Lick Terence v Chua Say Eng: Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act Dispute
In Lee Wee Lick Terence (alias Li Weili Terence) v Chua Say Eng (formerly trading as Weng Fatt Construction Engineering), the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard appeals from both parties regarding a High Court decision on an adjudication determination under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act. The primary legal issues concerned the validity and timely service of a payment claim. The court dismissed the appellant's appeal and allowed the respondent's appeal.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed in Part
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal concerning the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act, addressing the validity and timing of payment claims. The court allowed the appeal.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lee Wee Lick Terence (alias Li Weili Terence) | Appellant, Respondent | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Wong Soon Peng Adrian, Nelson Goh Kian Thong, Liew Mei Chun, Koh Kok Kwang |
| Chua Say Eng (formerly trading as Weng Fatt Construction Engineering) | Respondent, Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | Edwin Lee Peng Khoon, Poonaam Bai d/o Ramakrishnan Gnanasekaran |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Sek Keong | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| V K Rajah | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Wong Soon Peng Adrian | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Nelson Goh Kian Thong | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Liew Mei Chun | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Koh Kok Kwang | CTLC Law Corporation |
| Edwin Lee Peng Khoon | Eldan Law LLP |
| Poonaam Bai d/o Ramakrishnan Gnanasekaran | Eldan Law LLP |
4. Facts
- Lee Wee Lick Terence engaged Chua Say Eng to convert his two-storey house into a three-storey house.
- Disputes arose, leading Lee Wee Lick Terence to terminate the contract on 2010-04-21.
- Chua Say Eng served a document described as “PAYMENT CLAIM NO. 6” on Lee Wee Lick Terence on 2010-06-02.
- Payment Claim No. 6 was a claim for $140,450.40 for work done from June 2009 to 2010-04-26.
- Lee Wee Lick Terence did not serve a payment response within seven days as required by the Act.
- Chua Say Eng filed an adjudication application with the Singapore Mediation Centre on 2010-06-22.
- The adjudicator awarded Chua Say Eng the sum of $125,450.40.
5. Formal Citations
- Lee Wee Lick Terence (alias Li Weili Terence) v Chua Say Eng (formerly trading as Weng Fatt Construction Engineering), Civil Appeals Nos 44 and 46 of 2011, [2012] SGCA 63
- Chua Say Eng (formerly trading as Weng Fatt Construction Engineering) v Lee Wee Lick Terence (alias Li Weili Terence), , [2011] SGHC 109
- Chua Say Eng (formerly trading as Weng Fatt Construction Engineering) v Lee Wee Lick Terence @ Lee Weili Terence, , [2010] SGHC 333
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Contract signed | |
| Contract terminated | |
| CSE vacated the construction site | |
| Payment Claim No. 6 served | |
| Notice of intention to apply for adjudication served | |
| Adjudication application filed | |
| Conference held | |
| Adjudication determination issued | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Parties settled their dispute |
7. Legal Issues
- Validity of Payment Claim
- Outcome: The court held that the payment claim was valid as it satisfied all the formal requirements in s 10(3)(a) of the Act and reg 5(2) of the SOPR.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Compliance with formal requirements
- Intention to create a payment claim
- Timeliness of Payment Claim Service
- Outcome: The court held that regulation 5(1) of the SOPR does not create a limitation period barring payment claims served outside the prescribed period.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Interpretation of regulation 5(1) of the SOPR
- Whether a limitation period exists for serving payment claims
8. Remedies Sought
- Enforcement of Adjudication Determination
- Setting Aside of Order Granting Leave to Enforce Adjudication Determination
9. Cause of Actions
- Statutory Claim under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act
10. Practice Areas
- Construction Disputes
- Commercial Litigation
- Arbitration
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | This is the High Court decision that was appealed in the current case. |
| Sungdo Engineering & Construction (S) Pte Ltd v Italcor Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2010] 3 SLR 459 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court may review an adjudicator’s decision on whether a document properly constitutes a payment claim under the Act. |
| Chua Say Eng (formerly trading as Weng Fatt Construction Engineering) v Lee Wee Lick Terence @ Lee Weili Terence | High Court | Yes | [2010] SGHC 333 | Singapore | Assistant Registrar's decision on the validity of the payment claim. |
| Chip Hup Hup Kee Construction Pte Ltd v Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 658 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the formal validity and service of a payment claim did not affect the adjudicator’s jurisdiction. |
| SEF Construction Pte Ltd v Skoy Connected Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 733 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court’s role extended only to reviewing a closed list of “basic requirements” for the validity of an adjudication 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 the court’s role extended only to reviewing a closed list of “basic requirements” for the validity of an adjudication determination. |
| Brodyn Pty Ltd t/as Time Cost and Quality v Davenport & Anor | New South Wales Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] NSWCA 394 | Australia | Cited for the principle that the NSW Act laid down certain conditions that were essential for the existence of an adjudicator’s determination. |
| Chase Oyster Bar v Hamo Industries | New South Wales Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] NSWCA 190 | Australia | Cited for the importance of time limits in the NSW Act. |
| Associated Provincial Picture Houses, Limited v Wednesbury Corporation | Not Available | Yes | [1948] 1 KB 223 | England and Wales | Cited in relation to Wednesbury unreasonableness. |
| Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority | High Court of Australia | Yes | [1998] HCA 28 | Australia | Cited for the principle of whether it is the purpose of the legislation that an act done in breach of a provision should be invalid. |
| Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission | High Court of Australia | Yes | [2010] HCA 1 | Australia | Cited for the effect of a breach of s 15(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983 (NSW). |
| Craig v South Australia | High Court of Australia | Yes | [1995] HCA 58 | Australia | Cited for two categories of jurisdictional error. |
| Colonial Bank of Australasia v Willan | Privy Council | Yes | (1874) LR 5 PC 417 | United Kingdom | Cited regarding essential preliminary to the decision-making process. |
| Gedeon v Commissioner of the NSW Crime Commission | High Court of Australia | Yes | [2008] HCA 43 | Australia | Cited regarding jurisdictional fact. |
| Doo Ree Engineering & Trading Pte Ltd v Taisei Corporation | High Court | Yes | [2009] SGHC 218 | Singapore | Cited regarding repeat claims. |
| Tiong Seng Contractors (Pte) Ltd v Chuan Lim Construction Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR 364 | Singapore | Cited regarding the definition of progress payment. |
| Migotti v Colvill | Court of Common Pleas | Yes | (1879) 4 CPD 233 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the definition of calendar month. |
| General Ceramics Manufacturers Sdn Bhd v Non-Metallic Mineral Products Manufacturing Employees Union & Anor | Supreme Court | Yes | [1988] 3 MLJ 474 | Malaysia | Cited regarding the definition of calendar month. |
| Hastie & Jenkerson v McMahon | Not Available | Yes | [1990] 1 WLR 1575 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the general law of service. |
| Dualcorp Pty Ltd v Remo Constructions Pty Ltd | New South Wales Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] NSWCA 69 | Australia | Cited regarding amounts in previous claims which have been adjudicated upon on their merits. |
| Doolan v Rubikcon (Qld) Pty Ltd | Supreme Court of Queensland | Yes | [2008] 2 Qd R 117 | Australia | Cited regarding amounts in previous claims which have been adjudicated upon on their merits. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Building Control Act (Cap 29, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (Act 46 of 1999) (NSW) | Australia |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Payment Claim
- Adjudication Application
- Adjudication Determination
- Payment Response
- Construction Contract
- Security of Payment Act
- Adjudicator
- Authorised Nominating Body
- Progress Payment
- Jurisdictional Error
15.2 Keywords
- Construction
- Payment Claim
- Adjudication
- Security of Payment Act
- Singapore
- Building and Construction Industry
16. Subjects
- Construction Dispute
- Contract Law
- Arbitration
- Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act
17. Areas of Law
- Building and Construction Law
- Construction Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
- Arbitration Law