Mansource Interior v Citiwall Safety Glass: Setting Aside Adjudication Determination Under SOP Act
Mansource Interior Pte Ltd appealed against the decision of the Assistant Registrar, which upheld an Adjudication Determination in favor of Citiwall Safety Glass Pte Ltd under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act. The High Court, presided over by Tan Siong Thye JC, allowed the appeal, finding that the Adjudicator had wrongfully rejected Mansource Interior's Adjudication Response for being lodged out of time. The court held that the Adjudicator erred in relying on Rule 2.2 of the Singapore Mediation Centre Rules, which conflicted with the statutory timeline. Citiwall Safety Glass had filed a claim for $228,804.55, and the Adjudicator awarded $223,956.50. The court set aside the Adjudication Determination based on a breach of natural justice.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding an Adjudication Determination under the SOP Act. The court allowed the appeal, finding the Adjudicator wrongfully rejected the Adjudication Response.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mansource Interior Pte Ltd | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Allowed | Won | |
| Citiwall Safety Glass Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | A Rajandran of A Rajandran |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tan Siong Thye | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Edwin Lee | Eldan Law LLP |
| Poonaam Bai | Eldan Law LLP |
| Vani Nair | Eldan Law LLP |
| A Rajandran | A Rajandran |
4. Facts
- Respondent was awarded a sub-contract by the Appellant for wall finishes works valued at $1,252,750.
- A payment claim for $322,536.65 was served by the Respondent on the Appellant.
- The Appellant provided a payment response of $93,732.10, $228,804.55 less than the claimed amount.
- The Respondent applied for Adjudication to claim the shortfall of $228,804.55.
- The Adjudicator rejected the Appellant’s Adjudication Response for being lodged out of time based on the SMC Rules.
- The Adjudicator allowed nearly the entire amount claimed by the Respondent, determining that the Appellant was to pay $223,956.50.
- The Appellant appealed against the Assistant Registrar's decision to uphold the Adjudication Determination.
5. Formal Citations
- Mansource Interior Pte Ltd v Citiwall Safety Glass Pte Ltd, Originating Summons No. 886 of 2013 (Registrar's Appeal No 428 of 2013), [2014] SGHC 87
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Respondent awarded a sub-contract by the Appellant. | |
| Respondent served a payment claim on the Appellant. | |
| Appellant provided the Respondent with a payment response. | |
| Respondent served on the Appellant a notice of intention to apply for Adjudication. | |
| Respondent lodged an Adjudication Application with the Singapore Mediation Centre. | |
| SMC served the Adjudication Application on the Appellant. | |
| Appellant lodged its Adjudication Response with the SMC. | |
| Adjudication Determination was issued. | |
| Respondent took out an originating summons against the Appellant seeking to enforce the Adjudication Determination. | |
| Respondent obtained an order of court requiring the Appellant to make payment pursuant to the Adjudication Determination. | |
| Judgment requiring the Appellant to make payment pursuant to the Adjudication Determination. | |
| Appellant filed a summons seeking to set aside the Adjudication Determination. | |
| High Court allowed the appeal. | |
| Appeal to this decision in Civil Appeal No 39 of 2014 was allowed by the Court of Appeal. |
7. Legal Issues
- Wrongful Rejection of Adjudication Response
- Outcome: The court held that the Adjudicator wrongfully rejected the Adjudication Response by relying on Rule 2.2 of the Singapore Mediation Centre Rules, which was inconsistent with the statutory timeline under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to consider Adjudication Response
- Incorrect application of Singapore Mediation Centre Rules
- Breach of Natural Justice
- Outcome: The court held that the wrongful rejection of the Adjudication Response amounted to a denial of natural justice, as it deprived the Appellant of the opportunity to be heard.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Denial of opportunity to be heard
- Failure to comply with principles of natural justice
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court found no evidence of fraudulent misrepresentation in the Adjudication Application.
- Category: Substantive
- Failure to Consider Material
- Outcome: The court found that the Adjudicator did consider the material before him, including the Respondent's payment response.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside the Adjudication Determination
- Enforcement of the Adjudication Determination
9. Cause of Actions
- Enforcement of Adjudication Determination
- Setting Aside of Adjudication Determination
10. Practice Areas
- Construction Litigation
- Commercial Litigation
- Arbitration
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| W Y Steel Construction Pte Ltd v Osko Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2012] SGHC 194 | Singapore | Cited to support the principle that the Singapore Mediation Centre has no role in determining whether an adjudication response is late; that decision rests with the adjudicator. |
| W Y Steel Construction Pte Ltd v Osko Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 380 | Singapore | Cited to support the principle that the Singapore Mediation Centre has no role in determining whether an adjudication response is late; that decision rests with the adjudicator. Also cited regarding the principles of natural justice in adjudication. |
| 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 principle that the court should not review the merits of an adjudicator’s decision and that setting aside must be premised on issues relating to the jurisdiction of the Adjudicator. |
| SEF Construction Pte Ltd v Skoy Connected Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 733 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an Adjudication Determination may be set aside if the Adjudicator failed to comply with the rules of natural justice. |
| Lazarus Estates v Beasley | Queen's Bench | Yes | [1956] 1 QB 702 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that fraud unravels everything and that no court will allow a person to keep an advantage obtained by fraud. |
| Su Sh-Hsyu v Wee Yue Chew | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR(R) 673 | Singapore | Cited for affirming the principle that fraud unravels everything. |
| Khoo Chee Peng v Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri & Ors | High Court | Yes | [1998] 6 MLJ 646 | Malaysia | Cited for the definition of 'day' as a period of 24 hours. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| SMC Adjudication Procedure Rules Rule 2.2 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act s 10(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act s 11(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act s 13(1) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act s 13(2) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act s 13(4)(a) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act s 15(1) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act s 16(2)(b) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act s 16(3)(c) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act s 28(4)(e) | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) s 50(a) | Singapore |
| Holidays Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Adjudication Determination
- Adjudication Response
- Singapore Mediation Centre Rules
- Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act
- Natural Justice
- Payment Claim
- Payment Response
- Authorised Nominating Body
15.2 Keywords
- Adjudication
- SOP Act
- Construction
- Payment
- Dispute
- SMC Rules
- Natural Justice
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act | 90 |
| Construction Law | 75 |
| Contract Law | 60 |
| Civil Procedure | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Construction Dispute
- Adjudication
- Security of Payment
- Civil Procedure