YTL Construction v Balanced Engineering: SOP Act Adjudication Determination Dispute

YTL Construction (S) Pte Ltd sought to set aside an adjudication determination under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act against Balanced Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd. The High Court, presided over by Justice Tan Siong Thye, allowed the application, finding that Balanced Engineering's payment claim was invalid because it did not specify the claimed amount for the relevant period, and the adjudication application was lodged out of time. The court determined that these failures affected the validity of the adjudicator's appointment, warranting the setting aside of the adjudication determination.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's application allowed; adjudication determination set aside.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Dispute over an adjudication determination under the SOP Act. The court set aside the determination due to an invalid payment claim.

1.7 Decision Date

14 July 2014

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
YTL Construction (S) Pte Ltd	Plaintiff	Corporation	Application Allowed	Won	Abraham Vergis of Providence Law Asia LLC
Balanced Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Adjudication Determination Set Aside	Lost	Ng Kim Beng of Rajah & Tann LLP Hazel Tang of Rajah & Tann LLP Gerald Wiyatno of Rajah & Tann LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Tan Siong Thye	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Abraham Vergis	Providence Law Asia LLC
Ng Kim Beng	Rajah & Tann LLP
Hazel Tang	Rajah & Tann LLP
Gerald Wiyatno	Rajah & Tann LLP

4. Facts

YTL Construction appointed Balanced Engineering as a subcontractor for structural works.
The original agreed value of the works to be executed by Balanced Engineering was about $9 million.
Balanced Engineering served a payment claim on YTL Construction for work done in August 2013.
The payment claim did not specify the amount claimed for August 2013.
YTL Construction served a payment response certifying $695,370.76 (exclusive of GST) for August 2013.
Balanced Engineering lodged an adjudication application claiming $1,328,536.83.
The adjudicator determined that YTL Construction should pay Balanced Engineering $754,111.22.

5. Formal Citations

YTL Construction (S) Pte Ltd v Balanced Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd, Originating Summons No 1223 of 2013, [2014] SGHC 142

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2011-12-15	YTL Construction appointed as main contractor for the Project.
2013-09-06	Balanced Engineering served a payment claim on YTL Construction.
2013-09-30	YTL Construction served its payment response on Balanced Engineering.
2013-10-09	Balanced Engineering issued a tax invoice to claim $744,046.71.
2013-10-10	Balanced Engineering issued a revised tax invoice for $897,889.83.
2013-11-14	Due date for payment of $754,111.22.
2013-11-15	Balanced Engineering gave notice of intention to apply for adjudication.
2013-11-20	Balanced Engineering lodged its adjudication application with the Singapore Mediation Centre.
2013-11-21	YTL Construction received the adjudication application.
2013-11-28	YTL Construction lodged its adjudication response with the Singapore Mediation Centre.
2013-12-11	Adjudication determination issued.
2014-07-15	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Validity of Payment Claim
- Outcome: The court held that the payment claim was invalid because it did not state the specific amount claimed for the reference period.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Failure to state the claimed amount for the relevant period
- Related Cases:
  - [2013] 1 SLR 401
  - [2013] 2 SLR 776
Timeliness of Adjudication Application
- Outcome: The court held that the adjudication application was lodged out of time because the Defendant was disputing the payment response.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Lodging application out of time
  - Dispute of payment response
- Related Cases:
  - [2013] 1 SLR 848
Waiver of Formal Requirements
- Outcome: The court held that non-compliance with s 10(3) of the SOP Act cannot be waived.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Estoppel
  - Implied waiver
- Related Cases:
  - [2010] 1 SLR 658
  - [2013] 3 SLR 609
  - [2013] 1 SLR 1157
Compliance with Natural Justice
- Outcome: The court held that there was no breach of natural justice as the Plaintiff was given a fair opportunity to be heard.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2009] SGHC 260
Timeliness of Adjudication Determination
- Outcome: The court held that the adjudication determination was rendered within time.
- Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

Setting aside of adjudication determination

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract
Statutory Claim under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act

10. Practice Areas

Construction Litigation
Adjudication

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	Cited for the court's role in a setting-aside action and the importance of legislative provisions in the SOP Act.
Australia Timber Products Pte Ltd v A Pacific Construction & Development Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2013] 2 SLR 776	Singapore	Cited for considerations in determining whether a provision of the SOP Act or SOPR is a legislatively important provision.
Chip Hup Hup Kee Construction Pte Ltd v Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2010] 1 SLR 658	Singapore	Cited regarding whether parties could be estopped from contesting jurisdiction.
Admin Construction Pte Ltd v Vivaldi (S) Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2013] 3 SLR 609	Singapore	Cited regarding the validity of a payment claim and the jurisdiction of the adjudicator.
JFC Builders Pte Ltd v LionCity Construction Co Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2013] 1 SLR 1157	Singapore	Cited regarding non-compliance with s 10(1) of the SOP Act and whether it could be waived.
RN & Associates Pte Ltd v TPX Builders Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2013] 1 SLR 848	Singapore	Cited regarding s 16(2) of the SOP Act and the adjudicator's jurisdiction.
Shin Khai Construction Pte Ltd v FL Wong Construction Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2013] SGHCR 4	Singapore	Cited regarding s 16(2)(a) of the SOP Act.
W Y Steel Construction Pte Ltd v Osko Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2013] 3 SLR 380	Singapore	Cited regarding the importance of tight timelines under the SOP Act.
Chase Oyster Bar v Hamo Industries	New South Wales Court of Appeal	Yes	[2010] NSWCA 190	Australia	Cited regarding the strict observance of statutory requirements under the Security of Payment Act.
AM Associates (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Laguna National Golf and Country Club Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2009] SGHC 260	Singapore	Cited regarding the principles of natural justice and the review of adjudication determinations.

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
s 10(3)(a) of the SOP Act	Singapore
s 12(2) of the SOP Act	Singapore
s 12(5) of the SOP Act	Singapore
s 13(3)(a) of the SOP Act	Singapore
s 16(2)(a) of the SOP Act	Singapore
s 16(3)(c) of the SOP Act	Singapore
s 17(1) of the SOP Act	Singapore
s 12(1) of the SOP Act	Singapore
s 15(1) of the SOP Act	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Adjudication Determination
Payment Claim
Payment Response
Security of Payment Act
Adjudication Application
Claimed Amount
Dispute Settlement Period
Adjudicator
Jurisdiction
Estoppel

15.2 Keywords

SOP Act
Adjudication
Payment Claim
Construction
Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act	95
Construction Law	90
Building and Construction Contracts	80
Contract Law	60
Arbitration	30

16. Subjects

Construction Law
Contract Law
Civil Procedure