Store+Deliver+Logistics v Chin Siew Gim: Architect Negligence & Breach of Contract in Warehouse Construction
In Store+Deliver+Logistics Pte Ltd v Chin Siew Gim (trading as S G Chin and Associates), the High Court of Singapore heard a case regarding claims by Store+Deliver+Logistics against Chin Siew Gim for breach of contract and negligence in relation to the design and supervision of the construction of a warehouse. The court, presided over by Justice Lee Seiu Kin, found the defendant liable for failing to specify a superflat floor in the building contract and for failing to provide as-built drawings, awarding damages of $95,000 and $4,500 respectively. The court dismissed the other claims.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff in part.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Store+Deliver+Logistics sued Chin Siew Gim for negligence and breach of contract in a warehouse project. The court found the architect liable for failing to specify a superflat floor and provide as-built drawings.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Store+Deliver+Logistics Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Judgment for Plaintiff in part | Partial | |
| Chin Siew Gim (trading as S G Chin and Associates) | Defendant | Individual | Judgment against Defendant in part | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lee Seiu Kin | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| S Gunaseelan | M/s S Gunaseelan & Partners |
| Tan Cheow Hin | M/s CH Partners |
4. Facts
- The plaintiff engaged the defendant as the architect for a warehouse construction project.
- The defendant recommended Kin Lin Builders, but the plaintiff chose Expedite Construction instead.
- The plaintiff required a 'superflat' floor for a VNA racking system.
- The defendant did not specify a superflat floor in the building contract.
- The constructed floor did not meet the superflat specification, requiring the plaintiff to grind the floor at a cost of $95,000.
- The defendant specified Sisalation roof insulation, which the plaintiff claimed was unsuitable due to the corrosive environment.
- The defendant failed to provide as-built drawings.
5. Formal Citations
- Store+Deliver+Logistics Pte Ltd v Chin Siew Gim (trading as S G Chin and Associates), Suit No 188 of 2009, [2012] SGHC 89
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Defendant sent letter to plaintiff outlining terms of appointment. | |
| Tenders closed for the warehouse project. | |
| Defendant produced tender report recommending Kin Lin Builders. | |
| Defendant advised against awarding project to Expedite. | |
| Contract for construction of Warehouse awarded to Expedite. | |
| Construction commenced. | |
| Phase 1 completed and handed to plaintiff. | |
| Expedite commenced work on phase 2. | |
| Original completion date. | |
| Expedite commenced work on phase 3. | |
| Defendant certified works completed. | |
| Defendant listed 12 defects. | |
| Fire broke out in the Warehouse. | |
| Expedite provided schedule for rectification of defects. | |
| Defendant instructed Expedite to rectify unlevelled floor. | |
| Expedite claimed time for performance was at large. | |
| Defendant set out further list of defects. | |
| Defendant advised plaintiff to call on performance bond. | |
| Call made on the performance bond. | |
| Expedite filed Suit 309 of 2004. | |
| Defendant set out new list of defects. | |
| Suit 309 settled. | |
| Defendant issued letter listing new defects. | |
| T J Chiam produced report on defective works. | |
| Defendant issued delay certificate extending completion date. | |
| Defendant gave list of new defects. | |
| Expedite disagreed with defendant's evaluation of extension of time. | |
| Plaintiff engaged Franklin + Andrews to prepare cost estimate. | |
| Expedite submitted final claim. | |
| Defendant pointed out claims were unsubstantiated. | |
| Defendant issued Statement of Final Account. | |
| Plaintiff and Expedite appointed arbitrator. | |
| Arbitrator issued award. | |
| Suit No 188 of 2009 filed. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found the defendant liable for breach of contract for failing to specify a superflat floor and provide as-built drawings.
- Category: Substantive
- Negligence
- Outcome: The court found the defendant negligent in failing to specify a superflat floor and supervise the installation of roof insulation.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages for breach of contract and negligence
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Negligence
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Construction Defect Litigation
11. Industries
- Construction
- Logistics
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No cited cases | |||||
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Superflat floor
- VNA racking system
- As-built drawings
- Sisalation
- Parsec
- Warehouse construction
- Architectural services
15.2 Keywords
- architect
- negligence
- breach of contract
- warehouse
- construction
- superflat floor
- as-built drawings
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Architects and Engineers Liability | 90 |
| Breach of Contract | 80 |
| Construction Law | 75 |
| Contract Law | 70 |
| Negligence | 65 |
| Building Contract | 60 |
| Arbitration | 60 |
| Professional Negligence | 55 |
| Damages | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Construction Dispute
- Architectural Services
- Negligence
- Contract Law