Australian Timber Products v A Pacific Construction: Enforceability of Adjudication Determination under SOPA
In Australian Timber Products Pte Ltd v A Pacific Construction & Development Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore, presided over by Justice Woo Bih Li, dismissed A Pacific Construction & Development Pte Ltd's application to set aside an adjudication determination and an order of court obtained by Australian Timber Products Pte Ltd. The case concerned a dispute over the enforceability of an adjudication determination made under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act. The court found that the progress claim in question was a valid payment claim under the Act.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application to set aside the Adjudication Determination and the AR’s order dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The case concerns the enforceability of an adjudication determination under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act. The court dismissed the application to set aside the determination.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australian Timber Products Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | |
| A Pacific Construction & Development Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Application Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Woo Bih Li | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- ATP was appointed by APCD to carry out the supply, delivery and installation of parquet flooring and timber skirting for the Project.
- ATP sent Progress Claim No. 9 to APCD for $427,373.61.
- APCD did not make a payment response within the meaning of the Act.
- ATP served a notice of intention to apply for adjudication on APCD.
- The adjudicator found that Progress Claim No. 9 was a valid payment claim.
- APCD applied to set aside the Adjudication Determination and the AR’s order.
5. Formal Citations
- Australian Timber Products Pte Ltd v A Pacific Construction & Development Pte Ltd, Originating Summons No 210 of 2012 (Summons No 1633 of 2012), [2013] SGHC 56
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| APCD appointed ATP under a letter of award. | |
| ATP accepted the appointment under a sub-contract. | |
| ATP sent Progress Claim No. 9 to APCD. | |
| ATP served a notice of intention to apply for adjudication on APCD. | |
| ATP served Adjudication Application No SOP/AA004 of 2012 on APCD. | |
| Adjudication hearing convened. | |
| Adjudicator issued the Adjudication Determination. | |
| ATP filed Originating Summons No 210 of 2012. | |
| Assistant registrar granted ATP leave. | |
| APCD applied to set aside the Adjudication Determination and the AR’s order. | |
| Court dismissed APCD’s application. |
7. Legal Issues
- Enforceability of Adjudication Determination
- Outcome: The court held that the adjudication determination was enforceable.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Validity of payment claim
- Compliance with formal requirements of the Act and SOPR
- Validity of Payment Claim
- Outcome: The court held that the progress claim in question was a valid payment claim under the Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Intention to make a payment claim
- Sufficiency of details in payment claim
8. Remedies Sought
- Order to enforce the Adjudication Determination as a judgment debt
9. Cause of Actions
- Enforcement of Adjudication Determination
10. Practice Areas
- Construction Law
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lee Wee Lick Terence (alias Li Weili Terence) v Chua Say Eng (formerly trading as Weng Fatt Construction Engineering) and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 401 | Singapore | The case is binding and lays down the proper approach to be taken by the courts and adjudicators when dealing with disputes under the Act. |
| Sungdo Engineering & Construction (S) Pte Ltd v Italcor Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2010] 3 SLR 459 | Singapore | Cited regarding the intention of a claimant for a document to amount to a payment claim under the Act, but the court disagreed with the decision in Sungdo. |
| RN & Associates Pte Ltd v TPX Builders Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2012] SGHC 225 | Singapore | Cited regarding estoppel, but the court found the argument unpersuasive. |
| JFC Builders Pte Ltd v LionCity Construction Co Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2012] SGHC 243 | Singapore | Cited regarding a respondent’s failure to raise in a payment response his objections relating to the alleged invalidity of a payment claim. |
| Clarence Street Pty Ltd v Isis Projects Pty Ltd | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | (2005) 64 NSWLR 448 | Australia | Cited regarding the practical way for respondents to raise objections to the validity of a payment claim. |
| Nepean Engineering Pty Ltd v Total Process Services Pty Ltd (In Liq) | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | (2005) 64 NSWLR 462 | Australia | Cited regarding the practical way for respondents to raise objections to the validity of a payment claim. |
| Chase Oyster Bar Pty Ltd v Hamo Industries Pty Ltd | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | (2010) 78 NSWLR 393 | Australia | Cited approvingly in Chua Say Eng, regarding the breach of a legislatively important provision in the NSW Act. |
| Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd v Luikens | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | [2003] NSWSC 1140 | Australia | Cited regarding the operation of the NSW Act. |
| Protectavale Pty Ltd v K2K Pty Ltd | Federal Court of Australia | Yes | [2008] FCA 1248 | Australia | Cited regarding the test to determine compliance with the formal condition. |
| Coordinated Construction Co Pty Ltd v Climatech (Canberra) Pty Ltd | New South Wales Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] NSWCA 229 | Australia | Cited regarding the test to determine compliance with the formal condition. |
| Gantley Pty Ltd v Phoenix International Group Pty Ltd | Supreme Court of Victoria | Yes | [2010] VSC 106 | Australia | Cited regarding the test to determine compliance with the formal condition. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
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 10 | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) s 10(3) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) s 11(3)(c) | 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 12(4)(a) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) s 12(5) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Adjudication Determination
- Payment Claim
- Payment Response
- Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act
- Progress Claim
- Variation Works
15.2 Keywords
- Adjudication
- Construction
- Payment Claim
- Security of Payment Act
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act | 90 |
| Construction Law | 75 |
| Adjudication Determination | 65 |
| Breach of Contract | 60 |
| Contract Law | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Construction Dispute
- Adjudication
- Contract Law