Citiwall Safety Glass v Mansource Interior: Security of Payment Act & Leave to Appeal
In Citiwall Safety Glass Pte Ltd v Mansource Interior Pte Ltd, the Court of Appeal of Singapore addressed Mansource Interior's application to strike out Citiwall Safety Glass's notice of appeal. The appeal stemmed from a dispute over an adjudication determination under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act. Mansource Interior argued that Citiwall Safety Glass failed to obtain leave to appeal and provide sufficient security for costs. The court dismissed the summons, finding that leave to appeal was not required and ordering Citiwall Safety Glass to furnish additional security for costs. The primary legal issue concerned the interpretation of Section 34(2A)(c) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act regarding the requirement for leave to appeal.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Summons dismissed; Appellant ordered to furnish additional security.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Citiwall Safety Glass's appeal against Mansource Interior was challenged for lack of leave. The court dismissed the challenge, ordering additional security.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mansource Interior Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Summons dismissed | Won | |
| Citiwall Safety Glass Pte Ltd | Appellant | Corporation | Additional security for costs ordered | Partial | A Rajandran of A Rajandran |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Steven Chong | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Poonaam Bai | Eldan Law LLP |
| Vani Nair | Eldan Law LLP |
| Edwin Lee Pheng Khoon | Eldan Law LLP |
| A Rajandran | A Rajandran |
4. Facts
- Appellant was awarded a sub-contract by the Respondent on 21 December 2012.
- The contract sum was approximately $1,252,750.
- Appellant submitted its final payment claim for $322,536.65 on 5 August 2013.
- Respondent served a payment response indicating $93,732.10 was due on 21 August 2013.
- Appellant issued a Notice of Intention to Apply for Adjudication on 23 August 2013.
- The adjudicator determined that the Respondent was liable to pay the Appellant $223,956.50.
- The Judge set aside the Disputed AD, the Leave Order and the Disputed Judgment on 17 February 2014.
5. Formal Citations
- Citiwall Safety Glass Pte Ltd v Mansource Interior Pte Ltd, Civil Appeal No 39 of 2014 (Summons No 1563 of 2014), [2014] SGCA 61
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant awarded sub-contract by Respondent. | |
| Appellant submitted final payment claim. | |
| Respondent served payment response. | |
| Appellant issued Notice of Intention to Apply for Adjudication. | |
| Appellant lodged Adjudication Application with Singapore Mediation Centre. | |
| Adjudication Application served on Respondent. | |
| Respondent lodged its Adjudication Response. | |
| Disputed Adjudication Determination issued. | |
| Appellant issued Originating Summons No 886 of 2013. | |
| Appellant obtained Leave Order. | |
| Disputed Judgment entered. | |
| Respondent applied to set aside the Disputed AD, Leave Order, and Disputed Judgment. | |
| Judge allowed Respondent’s appeal and set aside the Disputed AD, Leave Order, and Disputed Judgment. | |
| Appellant filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal. | |
| Appellant filed a Certificate for Security for Costs. | |
| Respondent filed the Present Summons to strike out the Appellant’s notice of appeal. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Leave to Appeal
- Outcome: The Court held that the Appellant did not require leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal because the case fell under Section 34(2A)(c) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Interpretation of Section 34(2A)(c) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act
- High Court's original jurisdiction versus supervisory jurisdiction
- Related Cases:
- [2014] 3 SLR 264
- [2014] 1 SLR 108
- [2007] 2 SLR(R) 106
- [1963] 1 SCR 1
- Security for Costs
- Outcome: The Court held that the Appellant was required to provide security in the sum of $20,000 and ordered the Appellant to furnish additional security in the sum of $5,000.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Amount of security required for appeal
- Distinction between interlocutory and final orders
- Related Cases:
- [2006] 2 SLR(R) 525
- [1903] 1 KB 547
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside of the adjudication determination
- Setting aside of the leave order
- Setting aside of the judgment
9. Cause of Actions
- Enforcement of Adjudication Determination
- Setting Aside of Adjudication Determination
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Construction Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mansource Interior Pte Ltd v Citiwall Safety Glass Pte Ltd | Supreme Court | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 264 | Singapore | Cited as the decision from which the appeal arose, focusing on the setting aside of the adjudication determination. |
| Haron bin Mundir v Singapore Amateur Athletic Association | High Court | Yes | [1991] 2 SLR(R) 494 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of 'supervisory jurisdiction' as the inherent power of superior courts to review proceedings of inferior courts and tribunals. |
| Ng Chye Huey and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 106 | Singapore | Cited for its explanation of the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction and its distinction from revisionary jurisdiction. |
| R v Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1952] 1 KB 338 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the Court of King's Bench has inherent jurisdiction to control all inferior tribunals in a supervisory capacity. |
| Re Mohamed Saleem Ismail | High Court | Yes | [1987] SLR(R) 380 | Singapore | Cited to emphasize that the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction involves supervising, not reviewing, the decisions of inferior tribunals. |
| JFC Builders Pte Ltd v LionCity Construction Co Ptd Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 1157 | Singapore | Cited regarding the practice of bringing applications to set aside adjudication determinations before the High Court and the ineffectiveness of setting aside a leave order when the adjudication determination is set aside. |
| 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 | Cited for the court's role in a setting-aside action, emphasizing that the court should not review the merits of an adjudicator's decision but can decide on the validity of the adjudicator's appointment. |
| SEF Construction Pte Ltd v Skoy Connected Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 733 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court should not review the merits of an adjudicator's decision in a setting-aside action. |
| W Y Steel Construction Pte Ltd v Osko Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 380 | Singapore | Cited to highlight that the adjudication regime under the SOPA seeks to achieve temporary finality. |
| State of Uttar Pradesh v Dr Vijay Anand Maharaj | Indian Supreme Court | Yes | [1963] 1 SCR 1 | India | Cited for the principle that the Indian High Court, in exercising its power to issue prerogative writs, exercises original jurisdiction. |
| Nim Minimaart (suing as a firm) v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1079 and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 108 | Singapore | Cited regarding the construction of Section 34(2)(a) of the SCJA and its application to appeals from decisions made by the High Court in its original jurisdiction. |
| BNP Paribas v Polynesia Timber Services Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR(R) 539 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that practice directions issued by a court do not have the force of law. |
| Odex Pte Ltd v Pacific Internet Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 18 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that practice directions issued by a court do not have the force of law. |
| Wellmix Organics (International) Pte Ltd v Lau Yu Man | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR(R) 525 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of 'interlocutory order' and the test of whether a judgment or order is 'interlocutory' or 'final'. |
| Bozson v Altrincham Urban District Council | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1903] 1 KB 547 | England and Wales | Cited for the Bozson test to determine whether a judgment or order is 'interlocutory' or 'final'. |
| Rank Xerox (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Ultra Marketing Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1991] 2 SLR(R) 912 | Singapore | Cited for the application of the Bozson test. |
| Ling Kee Ling v Leow Leng Siong | High Court | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR(R) 36 | Singapore | Cited for the application of the Bozson test. |
| Aberdeen Asset Management Asia Ltd v Fraser & Neave Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR(R) 355 | Singapore | Cited for the application of the Bozson test. |
| Maldives Airports Co Ltd v GMR Male International Airport Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2013] 2 SLR 449 | Singapore | Cited for the application of the Bozson test. |
| Dorsey James Michael v World Sport Group Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 354 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an order granted in one proceeding may be interlocutory, and the same nature of order granted in another proceeding may be final. |
| Microsoft Corp and others v SM Summit Holdings Ltd and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR(R) 423 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of 'original criminal jurisdiction' to mean 'trial jurisdiction'. |
| Ang Cheng Hai and others v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR(R) 151 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of 'original criminal jurisdiction' to mean 'trial jurisdiction'. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 57 r 3(3) |
| Rules of Court O 95 |
| Rules of Court O 95 r 2(1) |
| Rules of Court O 95 r 2(3) |
| Rules of Court O 95 r 2(4) |
| Rules of Court O 95 r 3(1) |
| Rules of Court O 95 r 3(3) |
| Rules of Court O 1 r 4 |
| Rules of Court O 2 r 1 |
| Supreme Court Practice Directions para 86(2) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) s 34(2)(a) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) s 34(2A)(c) | Singapore |
| 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 | Singapore |
| State Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed) s 19(3) | Singapore |
| State Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed) s 52 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Adjudication Determination
- Security for Costs
- Leave to Appeal
- Supervisory Jurisdiction
- Original Jurisdiction
- Interlocutory Order
- Final Order
- Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act
- Supreme Court of Judicature Act
15.2 Keywords
- Adjudication
- Security of Payment Act
- Leave to Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Construction Dispute
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Security of Payment | 80 |
| Construction Law | 75 |
| Arbitration | 60 |
| Civil Procedure | 50 |
| Contract Law | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Construction Law
- Security of Payment
- Appeals
- Jurisdiction