LH Aluminium v Newcon: Premature Adjudication, Repeat Claims, and Settlement Agreements in Construction Dispute
In LH Aluminium Industries Pte Ltd v Newcon Builders Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore addressed Newcon's application to set aside an adjudication determination. The court, presided over by Eunice Chua AR, dismissed the application, finding that the adjudication application was not premature, the payment claim was not invalid as a repeat claim, and there was no binding settlement agreement between the parties. The case involved a dispute over payment for aluminium and glazing installation works in a construction project.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court dismissed Newcon's application to set aside an adjudication determination, addressing premature filing, repeat claims, and settlement.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LH Aluminium Industries Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application dismissed | Won | Richard Yeoh Kar Hoe |
| Newcon Builders Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Application dismissed | Lost | Joseph Lee, Tang Jin Sheng |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Eunice Chua | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Richard Yeoh Kar Hoe | David Lim & Partners LLP |
| Joseph Lee | Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
| Tang Jin Sheng | Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
4. Facts
- The plaintiff was the main contractor for a project involving additions and alterations to a commercial development.
- The defendant was the sub-contractor for aluminium and glazing installation works.
- The letter of acceptance between the parties contained clauses on payment terms and payment response.
- The contract incorporated the Singapore Institute of Architects Conditions of Sub-Contract.
- The plaintiff submitted payment claim no. 24 for $631,683.71 for work done up to 22 November 2013.
- The defendant issued a payment response for the sum of $0 on 20 December 2013.
- The plaintiff submitted an adjudication application on 3 January 2014.
5. Formal Citations
- LH Aluminium Industries Pte Ltd v Newcon Builders Pte Ltd, Originating Summons No 159 of 2014, [2014] SGHCR 10
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Letter of acceptance between parties for the Project was dated. | |
| Defendant sent a letter to the plaintiff regarding backcharge settlement. | |
| Plaintiff replied to the defendant regarding backcharges. | |
| Defendant sent an email regarding the Maintenance Certificate. | |
| Plaintiff replied to the defendant's email. | |
| Plaintiff submitted payment claim no. 24. | |
| Defendant issued a payment response for the sum of $0. | |
| Plaintiff submitted an adjudication application. | |
| Defendant submitted an adjudication response. | |
| Adjudicator rendered a determination in favor of the plaintiff. | |
| High Court dismissed the defendant’s application. |
7. Legal Issues
- Premature Adjudication Application
- Outcome: The court held that the adjudication application was not premature because the defendant had already served the Payment Response, and there was no reason to delay adjudication.
- Category: Procedural
- Invalidity of Payment Claim
- Outcome: The court held that the payment claim was not invalid as a repeat claim because it had not been adjudicated upon its merits.
- Category: Substantive
- Existence of Settlement Agreement
- Outcome: The court held that there was no settlement agreement between the parties because there was no agreement on the time for payment to be made.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside of adjudication determination
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Construction Litigation
- Adjudication
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JFC Builders Pte Ltd v LionCity Construction Co Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 1157 | Singapore | Cited regarding whether s 10(1) of the Act impliedly precluded a claimant from making a claim that merely repeated an earlier claim without any additional item of claim. |
| Lee Wee Lick Terence v Chua Say Eng | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 401 | Singapore | Cited for the Court of Appeal's obiter statement that it did not approve of the finding in a case involving a repeat non-adjudicated premature claim that s 10(1) of the Act prohibits all repeat claims. |
| Admin Construction Pte Ltd v Vivaldi (S) Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 609 | Singapore | Cited for the view that the Court of Appeal's decision in Terence Lee has put the matter beyond doubt regarding repeat claims. |
| Associate Dynamic Builder Pte Ltd v Tactic Foundation Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2013] SGHCR 16 | Singapore | Cited to argue that the court is bound to follow the approach in JFC Builders as a matter of stare decisis. |
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 |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Adjudication
- Payment Claim
- Payment Response
- Dispute Settlement Period
- Settlement Agreement
- Backcharges
- SIA Sub-Contract
- Repeat Claim
15.2 Keywords
- adjudication
- construction
- payment claim
- payment response
- settlement agreement
- Singapore
- Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act
16. Subjects
- Construction Dispute
- Adjudication
- Contract Law
17. Areas of Law
- Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act
- Construction Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
- Adjudication