W Y Steel Construction v Osko: Setting Aside Adjudication Determination under SOPA

In W Y Steel Construction Pte Ltd v Osko Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore heard an application by W Y Steel Construction Pte Ltd to set aside an adjudication determination made under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (SOPA). The adjudicator had ordered W Y Steel Construction to pay Osko Pte Ltd $1,767,069.80. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that the adjudicator had jurisdiction and did not breach natural justice, and that any errors of fact or law did not invalidate the determination, which has temporary finality under SOPA.

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

The High Court upheld an adjudication determination under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (SOPA), emphasizing its role in ensuring timely progress payments.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
W Y Steel Construction Pte LtdPlaintiff, AppellantCorporationApplication dismissedLostHenry Heng Gwee Nam, Corinne Taylor Lai Sze Huei, Gina Tan Yiting
Osko Pte LtdDefendant, RespondentCorporationJudgment for DefendantWonChelliah Ravindran, Alison Jayaram

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lee Seiu KinJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Henry Heng Gwee NamLegal Solutions LLC
Corinne Taylor Lai Sze HueiLegal Solutions LLC
Gina Tan YitingLegal Solutions LLC
Chelliah RavindranChelliah & Kiang
Alison JayaramChelliah & Kiang

4. Facts

  1. The Singapore Turf Club appointed the plaintiff as the main contractor for alterations and additions to the existing grandstand.
  2. The plaintiff and defendant entered into a sub-contract for the Project.
  3. The plaintiff served a letter to the defendant to terminate the Subcontract.
  4. The defendant served on the plaintiff payment claim no 10.
  5. The adjudicator ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant the sum of $1,767,069.80.

5. Formal Citations

  1. W Y Steel Construction Pte Ltd v Osko Pte Ltd, Originating Summons No 484 of 2012, [2012] SGHC 194

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Singapore Turf Club appointed the plaintiff as the main contractor.
Plaintiff and defendant entered into a sub-contract.
Plaintiff served a letter to the defendant to terminate the Subcontract.
Completion date of the Project stipulated in the Subcontract.
Defendant served on the plaintiff payment claim no 10.
Deadline under the Act for service of payment response expired.
Defendant served on the plaintiff a notice of intention to apply for adjudication under the Act.
Defendant filed with the Singapore Mediation Centre an adjudication application under the Act.
The SMC appointed Mr Naresh Mahtani as the adjudicator.
Deadline under the Act for submission of adjudication response expired.
Defendant applied by email to adjudicator to proceed with adjudication under the Act.
Plaintiff sent email claiming that the adjudication application was only served on them on 25 April 2012.
Plaintiff attempted to file an adjudication response but was rejected by SMC.
Adjudication conference held.
The adjudicator made the Adjudication Determination, ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendant the sum of $1,767,069.80 within seven days.
Defendant filed originating summons no 467 of 2012 for leave to enforce the Adjudication Determination.
Plaintiff filed originating summons no 484 of 2012 to set aside the Adjudication Determination.
The court ordered that the present OS would be treated as an application to set aside the Adjudication Determination.
Court upheld the Adjudication Determination and ordered the sum of $1,767,069.80 paid into court to be paid out to the defendant on 8 September 2012, if there is no appeal.
Plaintiff filed an appeal.
Decision Date.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Jurisdiction of Adjudicator
    • Outcome: The court held that the adjudicator was vested with jurisdiction as the payment claim was valid on its face and was validly served.
    • Category: Jurisdictional
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Termination of contract
      • Validity of payment claim
  2. Breach of Natural Justice
    • Outcome: The court found that the adjudicator had not made his determination in breach of natural justice.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Refusal to consider adjudication response
      • Failure to file payment response
  3. Error of Fact and Law
    • Outcome: The court held that any errors of fact or law did not invalidate the Adjudication Determination.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Setting aside of Adjudication Determination
  2. Interim Injunction

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Construction Litigation
  • Arbitration

11. Industries

  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Sungdo Engineering & Construction (S) Pte Ltd v Italcor Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2010] 3 SLR 459SingaporeCited for the principle that the Act was enacted to ensure cash flow of claimants are not disrupted by disputes concerning liability and quantum so that construction work can proceed smoothly.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Adjudication Determination
  • Payment Claim
  • Payment Response
  • Subcontract
  • Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act

15.2 Keywords

  • Construction
  • Adjudication
  • Security of Payment Act
  • SOPA
  • Singapore

16. Subjects

  • Construction Dispute
  • Adjudication
  • Contract Law

17. Areas of Law

  • Building and Construction Law
  • Construction Law
  • Arbitration Law