Lau Fook Hoong Adam v GTH Engineering: SOPA & Validity of Payment Claims After Final Claim
In Lau Fook Hoong Adam v GTH Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore addressed an application by Lau Fook Hoong Adam to resist the enforcement of an adjudication determination under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (SOPA). Lau sought a declaration that the adjudication determination was null and void, arguing that GTH Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd's payment claim was invalid because it was issued after a 'final claim'. The court dismissed the application, finding that Lau improperly attempted to circumvent the requirement to provide security for the adjudicated amount. The court also dismissed Lau's request for a stay of enforcement. While the court dismissed the application on preliminary grounds, it made observations regarding the validity of payment claims issued after a final claim under the SIA Conditions.
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 addressed whether a payment claim under the SOPA is valid after a final claim has been issued. The application was dismissed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lau Fook Hoong Adam | Plaintiff | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost | |
| GTH Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Application dismissed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Aedit Abdullah | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The plaintiff and defendant entered into a building and construction contract on 10 December 2008.
- The contract incorporated Singapore Institute of Architects’ Articles and Conditions of Building Contract (Lump Sum Contract) (7th Ed, April 2005).
- The agreed fee was $1,906,891.31 and the stipulated completion date was 5 December 2009.
- The defendant was unable to complete the works by the completion date, and the architect issued a delay certificate on 10 December 2009.
- The architect issued the completion certificate on 3 March 2011.
- The defendant issued 15 progress payment claims, and the plaintiff paid the amounts certified in all 15 interim certificates.
- The defendant issued Payment Claim 17 after issuing Payment Claim 16B, which the plaintiff considered the final claim.
5. Formal Citations
- Lau Fook Hoong Adam v GTH Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd, Originating Summons No 915 of 2014, [2015] SGHC 141
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Building and construction contract entered into | |
| Stipulated date for completion | |
| Architect issued a delay certificate | |
| Fifteenth progress payment claim issued | |
| Fifteenth interim architect’s certificate issued | |
| Completion certificate issued | |
| Architect reminded the defendant to submit its final claim | |
| Defendant served Payment Claim 16A | |
| Defendant served Payment Claim 16B | |
| Quantity surveyor sought clarification on Payment Claim 16B | |
| Documentation fully consolidated | |
| Maintenance certificate issued | |
| Defendant issued Payment Claim 17 | |
| Defendant gave notice of intention to apply for adjudication | |
| Architect sent letter to the defendant | |
| Defendant lodged an adjudication application | |
| Plaintiff notified of adjudication application | |
| Plaintiff filed adjudication response | |
| Adjudication conference held | |
| Plaintiff filed written submissions | |
| Final Account and final certificate issued | |
| Plaintiff informed adjudicator of Final Account and final certificate | |
| Defendant to tender reply | |
| Plaintiff requested adjudicator to consider Final Account and final certificate | |
| Adjudication determination issued | |
| Affidavit of Tan Teck Leong dated | |
| Affidavit of Adam Lau Fook Hoong @ Joe Lau dated | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Validity of Payment Claim
- Outcome: The court did not make a conclusive determination on the validity of Payment Claim 17, but noted that the plaintiff's argument had some merit.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Issuance of payment claim after final claim
- Compliance with SOPA requirements
- Setting Aside Adjudication Determination
- Outcome: The court held that the plaintiff's application was essentially a setting aside application and was improper because the plaintiff failed to provide the required security.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Requirement to provide security
- Circumventing statutory requirements
- Stay of Enforcement
- Outcome: The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for a stay of enforcement because the plaintiff did not provide any objective evidence of risk of insolvency or that any money paid would be irrecoverable.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Grounds for granting a stay
- Risk of insolvency
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration that the adjudication determination is null and void
- Declaration that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction
- Stay of enforcement of the adjudication determination
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| W Y Steel Construction Pte Ltd v Osko Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 380 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that adjudication determinations are granted temporary finality to facilitate cash flow in the building and construction industry. |
| Chin Ivan v H P Construction & Engineering Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] SGCA 14 | Singapore | Cited to define substantive proceedings as proceedings brought to obtain a final and binding determination of the full price payable for the work done. |
| Lee Wee Lick Terence (alias Li Weili Terence) v Chua Say Eng (formerly trading as Weng Fatt Construction Engineering) and another appeal | N/A | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 401 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court in a setting aside action is concerned with jurisdictional challenges against the adjudicator, which if successful, would render the adjudication determination null and void. |
| Tiong Seng Contractors (Pte) Ltd v Chuan Lim Construction Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 364 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a final claim also constituted a payment claim under the SOPA which could be adjudicated upon. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 95 r 3 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act
- SOPA
- Adjudication determination
- Payment claim
- Final claim
- Security
- Stay of enforcement
- SIA Conditions
- Architect's certificate
- Final Account
15.2 Keywords
- SOPA
- adjudication
- payment claim
- final claim
- construction
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Security of Payment | 80 |
| Construction Law | 75 |
| Building and Construction Contracts | 70 |
| Contract Law | 60 |
| Arbitration | 30 |
| Administrative Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Construction Dispute
- Adjudication
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure