Associate Dynamic Builder v Tactic Foundation: Setting Aside Adjudication Determination under Security of Payment Act
Associate Dynamic Builder Pte Ltd ("Plaintiff") applied to the High Court of Singapore to set aside an adjudication determination in favor of Tactic Foundation Private Limited ("Defendant"). The dispute arose from a sub-contract for temporary earth retaining works. The Plaintiff argued that the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (the "Act") did not apply, that the payment claim was a repeat claim, and that it lacked sufficient details. The High Court dismissed the application, finding the Act applicable, the payment claim valid, and the details sufficient. The court held that the Plaintiff had an obligation to pay the Defendant, contingent upon receipt of monies from Labcon, and that the payment claim was not an invalid repeat claim. The application to set aside the adjudication determination was dismissed.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application to set aside the adjudication determination dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Associate Dynamic Builder's application to set aside an adjudication determination was dismissed, as the court found the Security of Payment Act applicable.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Associate Dynamic Builder Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application Dismissed | Lost | Daniel Koh Choon Guan, Radika Mariapan |
| Tactic Foundation Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Adjudication Determination Upheld | Won | Ramesh s/o Varathappan |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chong Chin Chin | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Daniel Koh Choon Guan | Eldan Law LLP |
| Radika Mariapan | Eldan Law LLP |
| Ramesh s/o Varathappan | Surian & Partners |
4. Facts
- The Plaintiff sub-contracted temporary earth retaining structure works to the Defendant for S$1,525,945.75.
- The Defendant submitted progress claim no. 11 for $193,632.63 to the Plaintiff.
- The Plaintiff did not serve a payment response or adjudication response.
- The Defendant obtained an adjudication determination in its favour for the full amount claimed.
- The Plaintiff applied to set aside the adjudication determination.
5. Formal Citations
- Associate Dynamic Builder Pte Ltd v Tactic Foundation Pte Ltd, Originating Summons No 201 of 2013, [2013] SGHCR 16
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Letter of award issued | |
| Building and Construction Authority revoked Link’s permit to carry out building works | |
| Defendant submitted progress claim no. 7 | |
| Stop work order lifted | |
| Tripartite agreement entered into by Link, Labcon and the Plaintiff | |
| Defendant submitted progress claim no. 11 | |
| Plaintiff requested breakdown for strut serial number claimed | |
| Defendant informed the Plaintiff that it intends to apply for adjudication on the Payment Claim | |
| Defendant lodged an application for adjudication | |
| Defendant obtained an adjudication determination in its favour | |
| Defendant obtained leave of court to enforce the adjudication determination | |
| Plaintiff applied to set aside the adjudication determination | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Applicability of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act
- Outcome: The court found that the Act is applicable to the Agreement and the Payment Claim.
- Category: Substantive
- Validity of Payment Claim as a Repeat Claim
- Outcome: The court found that the Payment Claim was not an invalid repeat claim.
- Category: Substantive
- Sufficiency of Particulars in the Payment Claim
- Outcome: The court found that the Payment Claim contained sufficient particulars.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside of adjudication determination
9. Cause of Actions
- Setting aside of adjudication determination
10. Practice Areas
- Construction Litigation
- Adjudication
- 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 | Examined the role of the court in a setting aside application and opined that the court should not review the merits of an adjudicator's decision. |
| Tan Hock Keng v L & M Group Investments Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR(R) 672 | Singapore | Judicially considered the meaning of the word “procure”. |
| Zurich Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd v B-Gold Interior Design & Construction Pte Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR 1029 | Singapore | When interpreting the Agreement, the court has to ascertain the meaning which the Agreement would convey to a reasonable business person. |
| JFC Builders Pte Ltd v LionCity Construction Co Pte Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 1157 | Singapore | Considered the validity of repeat claims and held that repeat claims are prohibited under the Act. |
| Admin Construction Pte Ltd v Vivaldi (S) Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2013] SGHC 95 | Singapore | Observations made by the High Court that repeat claims are not prohibited under the Act are obiter dicta. |
| Doo Ree Engineering & Trading Pte Ltd v Taisei Corporation | High Court | Yes | [2009] SGHC 218 | Singapore | That s 10(1) of the Act prohibits all repeat claims. |
| Australian Timber Products Pte Ltd v A Pacific Construction & Development Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2013] SGHC 56 | Singapore | The court had to consider if a payment claim which did not comply with reg 5(2)(c)(iii) and (iv) would be rendered invalid. |
| SEF Construction Pte Ltd v Skoy Connected Pte Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 733 | Singapore | If there are errors in the quantification of the claim on the part of the adjudicator, such errors can be rectified in subsequent court proceedings which would be determinative of the dispute between the parties. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Adjudication determination
- Payment claim
- Construction contract
- Progress payment
- Repeat claim
- Security of Payment Act
- Stop work order
- Tripartite agreement
15.2 Keywords
- adjudication
- construction
- payment claim
- security of payment act
16. Subjects
- Construction Dispute
- Adjudication
- Contract Law
17. Areas of Law
- Construction Law
- Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law