Citiwall Safety Glass v Mansource Interior: SOPA Adjudication Response Deadline Dispute
Citiwall Safety Glass Pte Ltd appealed against the Judge’s decision in favor of Mansource Interior Pte Ltd, concerning an adjudication determination under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (SOPA). The central issue was whether the Adjudication Response was filed on time. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Singapore Mediation Centre's (SMC) rule regarding document lodgement deadlines was valid and that the Adjudicator was correct to reject the late response. The court also addressed the issue of interest on the judgment sum.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 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 SOPA. The court held that the SMC's rule on document lodgement deadlines was valid.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mansource Interior Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Citiwall Safety Glass Pte Ltd | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Allowed | Won | A Rajandran of A Rajandran |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | No |
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Steven Chong | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Lee Peng Khoon Edwin | Eldan Law LLP |
| Poonaam Bai | Eldan Law LLP |
| Vani Nair | Eldan Law LLP |
| Tay Kuan Seng Charles | Eldan Law LLP |
| A Rajandran | A Rajandran |
4. Facts
- The Respondent awarded the Appellant a subcontract for construction works valued at $1,252,750.
- The Appellant served a Payment Claim on the Respondent for $322,536.65.
- The Respondent provided a Payment Response for only $93,732.10, resulting in a disputed sum of $228,804.55.
- The Appellant lodged an Adjudication Application with the Singapore Mediation Centre.
- The Respondent lodged its Adjudication Response two minutes after the official closing hours of the SMC.
- The Adjudicator rejected the Adjudication Response as it was filed out of time.
- The Judge allowed the Respondent’s appeal, setting aside the Adjudication Determination.
5. Formal Citations
- Citiwall Safety Glass Pte Ltd v Mansource Interior Pte Ltd, Civil Appeal No 39 of 2014, [2015] SGCA 42
- Mansource Interior Pte Ltd v Citiwall Safety Glass Pte Ltd, , [2014] 3 SLR 264
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Respondent awarded the Appellant a subcontract. | |
| Appellant served a Payment Claim on the Respondent. | |
| Respondent provided the Appellant with a Payment Response. | |
| Appellant lodged an Adjudication Application with the Singapore Mediation Centre. | |
| Adjudication Application was served on the Respondent. | |
| Respondent lodged its Adjudication Response with the Singapore Mediation Centre. | |
| Date from which interest on the judgment sum is disputed. | |
| Date until which interest on the judgment sum is disputed. | |
| Appeal allowed. |
7. Legal Issues
- Validity of Singapore Mediation Centre Rules
- Outcome: The court held that Rule 2.2 of the SMC Rules is consistent with the SOPA and is therefore not ultra vires.
- Category: Substantive
- Compliance with SOPA Timelines
- Outcome: The court held that timelines under the SOPA have to be strictly complied with.
- Category: Procedural
- Applicability of De Minimis Rule
- Outcome: The court held that there was no place for the de minimis rule to apply in this case.
- Category: Substantive
- Interest on Judgment Sum
- Outcome: The court held that the Respondent was liable to pay interest on the judgment sum for the disputed period.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside of Adjudication Determination
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Construction Litigation
- Commercial Litigation
- Arbitration
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mansource Interior Pte Ltd v Citiwall Safety Glass Pte Ltd | Unspecified | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 264 | Singapore | The judgment being appealed from. |
| Thomas & Betts (SE Asia) Pte Ltd v Ou Tin Joon and another | High Court | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR(R) 380 | Singapore | Cited regarding the strict construction of empowering provisions where authorities enact rules inconsistent with primary legislation. |
| Augustine Zacharia Norman and another v Goh Siam Yong | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR(R) 746 | Singapore | Cited regarding the strict construction of empowering provisions where authorities enact rules inconsistent with primary legislation. |
| Lines International Holding (S) Pte Ltd v Singapore Tourist Promotion Board and another | High Court | Yes | [1997] 1 SLR(R) 52 | Singapore | Cited regarding the principle that an authority entrusted with discretion must exercise that discretion itself and cannot abrogate this responsibility. |
| Peake v Automotive Products Ltd | Unspecified | Yes | [1977] 3 WLR 853 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the application of the de minimis rule. |
| SEF Construction Pte Ltd v Skoy Connected Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 733 | Singapore | Cited regarding the purpose of the SOPA to provide speedy and temporary relief and the court's role in setting aside adjudication determinations. |
| W Y Steel Construction Pte Ltd v Osko Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 380 | Singapore | Cited regarding the strict compliance with timelines under the SOPA. |
| Nitrate Producers Steamship Co Ltd v Short Bros Ltd | Unspecified | Yes | [1922] All ER 710 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the principle that where a first instance judgment is reversed and subsequently restored, the first instance judgment is restored from the date it was given. |
| Crédit Agricole Indosuez v Banque Nationale de Paris | High Court | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR(R) 609 | Singapore | Cited regarding the court's equitable jurisdiction in awarding interest on judgment sums and seeking to do justice to the parties. |
| Singapore Airlines Ltd and another v Fujitsu Microelectronics (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd and others | High Court | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR(R) 38 | Singapore | Cited regarding the court's equitable jurisdiction in awarding interest on judgment sums and seeking to do justice to the parties. |
| Borthwick v The Elderslie Steamship Company Limited (No 2) | Unspecified | Yes | [1905] KB 516 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the principle that interest is only payable on a judgment sum when there is a contract or where the principal money has been wrongly withheld. |
| Caledonian Railway v Carmichael | House of Lords | Yes | (1870) LR 2 HL Sc 56 | Scotland | Cited regarding the principle that interest can only be demanded by virtue of a contract or where the principal money has been wrongfully withheld. |
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 |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) s 10(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) s 11(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) s 13(1) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) s 13(4)(a) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) s 15(1) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) s 16(2)(b) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) s 16(3)(c) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) s 28(4)(e) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) s 37 | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) s 50(a) | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) s 48A(1) | Singapore |
| Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed) s 387 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Adjudication Determination
- Adjudication Response
- Singapore Mediation Centre
- Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act
- SOPA
- Payment Claim
- Payment Response
- Ultra Vires
- De Minimis
15.2 Keywords
- SOPA
- Adjudication
- Construction
- Singapore Mediation Centre
- Timelines
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Construction Law | 90 |
| Security of Payment | 80 |
| Contract Law | 60 |
| Arbitration | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Construction Dispute
- Adjudication
- Civil Procedure