JFC Builders v LionCity Construction: SOPA Adjudication & Repeat Claims
In JFC Builders Pte Ltd v LionCity Construction Co Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by LionCity Construction Co Pte Ltd against a decision to set aside an adjudication determination in its favor under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (SOPA). JFC Builders Pte Ltd had applied to set aside the adjudication determination, arguing that the payment claim was a repeat claim and served out of time. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the payment claim was an invalid repeat claim under SOPA.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding setting aside an adjudication determination under SOPA. The court reviewed the validity of payment claims and repeat claims.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JFC Builders Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application allowed | Won | |
| LionCity Construction Co Pte Ltd | Defendant, Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Woo Bih Li | J | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Plaintiff engaged Defendant for structural and architectural works for a hotel project.
- Defendant submitted Progress Claim No 7 for work done up to 30 November 2010.
- Plaintiff paid $125,000 in respect of Progress Claim No 7.
- Defendant submitted Progress Claim No 8 for the same work, crediting the $125,000 payment.
- Plaintiff did not issue a payment response to Progress Claim No 8.
- Defendant submitted an adjudication application, and the adjudicator determined amounts payable by the Plaintiff.
- Plaintiff applied to set aside the adjudication determination, arguing Progress Claim No 8 was a repeat claim.
5. Formal Citations
- JFC Builders Pte Ltd v LionCity Construction Co Pte Ltd, Originating Summons No 547 of 2012/K (Registrar's Appeal No 316 of 2012/K), [2012] SGHC 243
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Defendant submits Progress Claim No 7 to Plaintiff | |
| Defendant submits Progress Claim No 8 to Plaintiff | |
| Plaintiff does not submit payment response | |
| Start of dispute settlement period | |
| End of dispute settlement period | |
| Defendant submits Adjudication Application in respect of Progress Claim No 8 | |
| Plaintiff does not lodge Adjudication Response | |
| Adjudicator issues Adjudication Determination | |
| Defendant applies for leave to enforce the Adjudication Determination | |
| Defendant obtains Order of Court granting leave to enforce the Adjudication Determination | |
| Order of Court served on Plaintiff | |
| Plaintiff applies to set aside the Adjudication Determination and Order of Court | |
| OS 547/2012 was heard by an Assistant Registrar | |
| OS 547/2012 was heard by an Assistant Registrar | |
| Defendant filed an appeal against the AR’s decision | |
| The AR issued her Grounds of Decision | |
| Defendant’s appeal first came on for hearing | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Validity of Payment Claim
- Outcome: The court held that the payment claim was an invalid repeat claim under SOPA.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Repeat claim
- Service out of time
- Notice of Intention to Apply for Adjudication
- Outcome: The court held that the notice of intention to apply for adjudication was not invalid.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside of Adjudication Determination
- Setting aside of Order of Court
9. Cause of Actions
- Statutory Claim under Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act
10. Practice Areas
- Construction Litigation
- Commercial Litigation
- Arbitration
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lee Wee Lick Terence (Li Weili Terence) v Chua Say Eng (formerly trading as Weng Fatt Construction Engineering) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] SGCA 63 | Singapore | Reviewed High Court authorities and drew a distinction between the existence of a payment claim and whether a payment claim complies with the requirements of SOPA. |
| Brodyn Pty Ltd v Davenport | New South Wales Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] NSWCA 394 | Australia | Characterized a condition, the breach of which would invalidate an adjudication, as “essential”. |
| Chase Oyster Bar Pty Limited v Hamo Industries Pty Ltd | New South Wales Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] NSWCA 190 | Australia | Characterized a condition, the breach of which would invalidate an adjudication, as “mandatory”. |
| Brookhollow Pty Ltd v R&R Consultants Pty Ltd | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | [2006] NSWSC 1 | Australia | A challenge to a payment claim must be raised in a timeously served payment response. |
| RN & Associates Pte Ltd v TPX Builders Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2012] SGHC 225 | Singapore | A respondent who served a payment response but did not raise a certain objection in its payment response was estopped from raising it before the court. |
| Chip Hup Hup Kee Construction Pte Ltd v Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 658 | Singapore | Addressed whether an error by the adjudicator about the validity of the payment claim was a mere irregularity which could be waived. |
| Sandra Doolan and Stephen Doolan v Rubikcon (QLD) Pty Ltd | Supreme Court of Queensland | Yes | [2007] QSC 168 | Australia | A previous claim cannot be the sole item included in a later claim. |
| Dualcorp Pty Ltd v Remo Constructions Pty Ltd | New South Wales Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] NSWCA 69 | Australia | Cannot create fresh reference dates by lodging the same claim for the same completed works in successive payment claims. |
| Doo Ree Engineering & Trading Pte Ltd v Taisei Corp | High Court | Yes | [2009] SGHC 218 | Singapore | Repeat claims are not allowed under SOPA. |
| Spankie v James Trowse Construction Pty Ltd | Queensland Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] QCA 355 | Australia | Rejected the contention that the law precluded the making of successive payment claims for identical amounts for the same work where the second payment claim related to a new reference date after the reference date for the first claim. |
| Watpac Constructions v Austin Corp | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | (2010) NSWSC 168 | Australia | The payment claim which was the subject of an AD included a claim for variation work which had been the subject of an earlier AD by another adjudicator. The court decided that such an inclusion did not make the entire payment claim an invalid one. |
| Olympia Group Pty Ltd v Tyrenian Group Pty Ltd | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | [2010] NSWSC 319 | Australia | The Act permits successive payment claims to be made for the same work. |
| Falgat Constructions Pty Ltd v Equity Australia Corporation Pty Ltd | New South Wales Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] NSWCA 259 | Australia | After cessation of work there continue to be reference dates in respect of which successive payment claims can be made and that s 13(6) permits successive payment claims to be for the same work. |
| CC No 1 v Reed | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | [2010] NSWSC 294 | Australia | The subsections permit the inclusion in another payment claim (necessarily by reference to another reference date) an amount that has been the subject of a previous 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 | Addressed the time frame in which a payment claim for work done should be served. |
| Taylor Projects Group Pty Ltd v Brick Dept Pty Ltd | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | [2005] NSWSC 439 | Australia | The time limits under the Act are strict and that the consequences of not complying with stipulated time limits may be significant. |
| Shellbridge Pty Ltd v Rider Hunt Sydney Pty Ltd | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | [2005] NSWSC 1152 | Australia | Repeat claims are not allowed under SOPA. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 95 r 2(1) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) s 27(5) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) s 15(3)(a) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) s 10(1) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) s 10(4) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) ss 11(1), 12(2)(b), 12(5), 13(1) to (3)(a) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Adjudication Determination
- Payment Claim
- Payment Response
- Progress Payment
- Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act
- Repeat Claim
- Dispute Settlement Period
- Notice of Intention to Apply for Adjudication
15.2 Keywords
- SOPA
- adjudication
- payment claim
- construction
- repeat claim
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act | 95 |
| Construction Law | 90 |
| Contract Law | 60 |
| Arbitration | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Construction Dispute
- Adjudication
- Security of Payment