Ng Boo Han v Teo Boon Hiang: Construction Defect Claim & Damages

Ng Boo Han and another engaged Teo Boon Hiang Edward to rebuild their house. Dissatisfied with the work, they refused to pay the outstanding sum, leading Teo to sue for the amount due and the cost of additional works. Ng counterclaimed for damages due to defective works. The High Court partially allowed Ng's appeal, awarding damages for the cost of rectifying defects, lease extension, removal and storage costs, and purchase of air-conditioning remote control units, after setting off the amount owed to Teo.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed in Part

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Homeowners Ng Boo Han sued builder Teo Boon Hiang for defective construction. The court partially allowed the appeal, awarding damages for rectification.

1.7 Decision Date

17 December 2014

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Ng Boo Han	Appellant	Individual	Appeal allowed in part	Partial	Dominic Chan of Characterist LLC Jenna Law of Characterist LLC
Teo Boon Hiang Edward	Respondent	Individual	Claim allowed in part	Partial	Chia Boon Teck of Chia Wong LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Edmund Leow	Judicial Commissioner	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Dominic Chan	Characterist LLC
Jenna Law	Characterist LLC
Chia Boon Teck	Chia Wong LLP

4. Facts

Appellants engaged Respondent to rebuild their house for $350,000.
Appellants were impressed by the Respondent's house, which he built himself.
The contract stipulated a handover date of August 1, 2011.
Appellants claimed the construction works were defective.
Appellants refused to pay the final 20% until defects were rectified.
Respondent sued for the outstanding sum and additional works.
Appellants counterclaimed for damages due to defective works.

5. Formal Citations

Ng Boo Han and another v Teo Boon Hiang Edward, District Court Appeal Nos 37 and 44 of 2013 and Summons No 646 of 2014, [2014] SGHC 267

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2010-10-01	Appellants stopped by the Respondent’s house to ask him who built his house.
2010-11-01	Parties met again at the Respondent’s house.
2011-01-20	The parties agreed on a price of $350,000 for the project with handover to take place by August 2011. The terms of their agreement were recorded in a simple written contract.
2011-01-22	Appellants made the down payment of $140,000.
2011-01-01	Respondent commenced work on the premises in the last week of January 2011.
2011-05-18	Upon completion of the roof, the Appellants made the second payment of $140,000.
2011-08-01	House was still not completed.
2011-08-23	Appellants visited the construction site.
2011-08-24	Parties’ neighbor offered to mediate their dispute.
2011-08-26	Appellants agreed to pay the Respondent $40,000.
2011-09-25	Second Appellant brought to the Respondent’s attention a list of uncompleted works.
2011-10-12	Respondent failed to properly handover the premises to the Appellants.
2011-10-16	Respondent failed to hand over the premises.
2011-10-17	Appellants met with the Respondent’s son and daughter and brought to their attention a list of defects and uncompleted works.
2011-10-21	Respondent’s daughter presented to the Appellants a list of the outstanding defects.
2011-10-28	Appellants’ solicitors wrote to the Respondent informing him that he had breached the Contract.
2013-01-01	District Court Appeal Nos 37 and 44 of 2013
2014-01-01	Summons No 646 of 2014 filed.
2014-12-18	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that the Respondent had breached the contract by failing to complete the construction works in a satisfactory manner.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Defective Workmanship
  - Failure to Complete Work
  - Failure to Rectify Defects
- Related Cases:
  - [2014] SGHC 267
Admissibility of Further Evidence
- Outcome: The court dismissed the application to adduce further evidence, finding that the conditions in Ladd v Marshall were not satisfied.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [1954] 1 WLR 1489
  - [2007] 1 SLR(R) 1133
  - [2004] 2 SLR(R) 392
Damages for Defective Work
- Outcome: The court awarded damages to the Appellants for the cost of rectifying the defects in the Respondent's work.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [1994] 2 SLR(R) 996
  - [1996] 1 AC 344

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages
Rectification of Defects

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract
Defective Construction Work

10. Practice Areas

Construction Defect Litigation
Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Ladd v Marshall	N/A	Yes	[1954] 1 WLR 1489	N/A	Cited for the conditions to admit further evidence in an appeal.
WBG Network (S) Pte Ltd v Sunny Daisy Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2007] 1 SLR(R) 1133	Singapore	Cited for the application of Ladd v Marshall conditions in appeals to the High Court.
Lassiter Ann Masters v To Keng Lam (alias Toh Jeanette)	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2004] 2 SLR(R) 392	Singapore	Cited for the stringent nature of the first condition under Ladd v Marshall.
Saeng-Un Udom v Public Prosecutor	N/A	Yes	[2001] 2 SLR(R) 1	Singapore	Cited for the principle that expert evidence must be accepted unless obviously lacking in defensibility.
Mahtani and others v Kiaw Aik Hang Land Pte Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1994] 2 SLR(R) 996	Singapore	Cited for the normal measure of damages in the case of defective construction works.
Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth	N/A	Yes	[1996] 1 AC 344	N/A	Cited for the principle that diminution in value may be adopted as the measure of damages where the cost of rectification is wholly disproportionate to the end to be attained.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Construction Defects
Rectification Costs
Rustic Design
Building Regulations
Expert Evidence
Ladd v Marshall
Further Evidence
Defects List

15.2 Keywords

construction
defects
damages
contract
appeal
Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Breach of Contract	90
Construction Law	85
Defective Works	75
Contract Law	70
Rectification Costs	60
Damages	50
Property Law	30

16. Subjects

Construction Dispute
Contract Law
Civil Litigation