SKK (S) Pte Ltd v Management Corporation: Assessment of Prolongation Costs
In SKK (S) Pte Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1166, the High Court of Singapore addressed the assessment of damages for prolongation costs. SKK (S) Pte Ltd claimed against the Management Corporation for delays in a repainting project at Mandarin Gardens. The court allowed some claims, including costs for supervisors, drivers, gondolas, riggers, a licensed electrical worker, and safety endorsements, but disallowed others, such as foreign worker levies, accommodation costs, head office overheads, and administrative costs, due to lack of proof. The court awarded a total of $70,204.50 to SKK (S) Pte Ltd.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Partial Judgment for Plaintiff
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Assessment of damages for prolongation costs due to delays in repair and repainting works at Mandarin Gardens Condominium. The court allowed some claims but disallowed others due to lack of proof.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SKK (S) Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Partial Judgment | Partial | |
| Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1166 | Defendant | Corporation | Partial Judgment | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Elaine Liew | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- SKK (S) Pte Ltd was contracted by the Management Corporation to supply paint and carry out repainting works at Mandarin Gardens Condominium.
- The Plaintiff claimed for prolongation costs due to delays caused by the Defendant in approving repair lists.
- The trial Judge found the Plaintiff entitled to prolongation costs based on expert testimony that the work was delayed by 6.42 weeks.
- The Plaintiff subcontracted the works to ACS Amview Contract Services Pte Ltd on a back-to-back basis.
- The Defendant challenged the Plaintiff’s claim, arguing that ACS Amview was not entitled to claim prolongation costs.
- The Plaintiff's expert witness originally computed the Plaintiff’s prolongation costs to be in the sum of $627,543.60, but this figure was revised downwards to $317,318.89.
- The Defendant's expert witness computed the Plaintiff’s claim for prolongation costs to be $77,526.15.
5. Formal Citations
- SKK (S) Pte Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1166, Suit No 1022 of 2009 (Notice of Appointment for Assessment of Damages No 39 of 2012), [2013] SGHCR 11
- SKK (S) Pte Ltd v Management Corporation Srata Title Plan No 1166, , [2011] SGHC 215
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Invoice from Mega Engineering reflecting costs of engaging a licensed electrical worker and of a professional engineer. | |
| Start date for gondola costs. | |
| Date of completion of the works. | |
| Articles of Contract dated. | |
| SKK decision issued ([2011] SGHC 215). | |
| Hearing where Mr. Tan sought leave for the Court to make a preliminary determination on the time frame of the Plaintiff’s claim for prolongation costs. | |
| Preliminary determination upheld on appeal in Registrar’s Appeal No 365 of 2012. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Assessment of Damages
- Outcome: The court determined the appropriate amount of damages for prolongation costs, allowing some claims and disallowing others based on the evidence presented.
- Category: Substantive
- Prolongation Costs
- Outcome: The court determined the relevant time frame for assessment of prolongation costs to be 6.42 weeks.
- Category: Substantive
- Res Judicata
- Outcome: The court held that the preliminary contentions raised by the Defendant were not barred by res judicata.
- Category: Procedural
- Judicial Notice
- Outcome: The court declined to take judicial notice of certain facts, finding that they required documentary proof.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Construction Disputes
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SKK (S) Pte Ltd v Management Corporation Srata Title Plan No 1166 | High Court | Yes | [2011] SGHC 215 | Singapore | The judgment in which the Plaintiff was awarded interlocutory judgment with damages to be assessed by the Registrar for the claim for prolongation costs. |
| Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 453 | Singapore | Cited for the three distinct principles which come under the umbrella of the doctrine of res judicata. |
| The Duke of Buccleuch | Probate Division | Yes | [1892] P 201 | England and Wales | Cited to define the interlocutory nature of the judgment. |
| Ling Kee Ling and another v Leow Leng Siong and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR(R) 36 | Singapore | Cited to define the interlocutory nature of the judgment. |
| Hadley v Baxendale | Court of Exchequer | Yes | (1854) 9 Exch 341 | England and Wales | Cited for the first limb of the rule on remoteness of damages. |
| Laburnum Construction Corp v United States | United States Court of Claims | Yes | (1963) 163 Ct. Cl. 339, F.2d 451 | United States | Cited to define prolongation and its interplay with delay for the purposes of assessment. |
| Peak Construction (Liverpool) Ltd v McKinney Foundations Ltd | Not Available | Yes | (1970) 69 LGR 1 | England and Wales | Cited to state that formulae themselves do not constitute proof of loss. |
| Tang Yoke Kheng (trading as Niklex Supply Co) v Lek Benedict and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR(R) 263 | Singapore | Cited for the standard of proof in a civil case where fraud is alleged. |
| Plaza Singapura (Pte) Ltd v Cosdel (S) Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1990] 2 SLR(R) 22 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court should be cautious in invoking the doctrine of judicial notice. |
| Zheng Yu Shan v Lian Beng Construction (1988) Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 2 SLR(R) 587 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that any doubt as to the public notoriety of any fact which is alleged to be judicially noticeable ought to be resolved against the party seeking to rely on that fact. |
| Foo Jong Peng and others v Phua Kiah Mai and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 1267 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an implied term exists between the Plaintiff and ACS Amview for the former to do the necessary to put in claims for an extension of time when required. |
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 |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Prolongation Costs
- Assessment of Damages
- Res Judicata
- Judicial Notice
- Back-to-Back Subcontract
- SIA Conditions
- Emden's Formula
- Gondolas
- Riggers
- Site Supervisors
- Foreign Worker Levy
15.2 Keywords
- prolongation costs
- construction delay
- assessment of damages
- Singapore High Court
- building contract
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Construction Dispute
- Contract Law
- Damages Assessment