Lau Fook Hoong Adam v GTH Engineering: Challenging Adjudication Jurisdiction Under SOPA

In Lau Fook Hoong Adam v GTH Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore dismissed the plaintiff's application challenging the adjudicator's jurisdiction under the Security of Payment Act (SOPA). The court, presided over by Aedit Abdullah JC, found that despite the application being filed before the adjudication determination was issued, it was effectively an attempt to set aside the determination and thus required the plaintiff to provide security, which he failed to do. The court reasoned that allowing such challenges without security would encourage dilatory tactics, undermining the purpose of SOPA. The judgment supplements the Original Judgment issued on 25 May 2015.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Plaintiff's application challenging adjudicator's jurisdiction dismissed. The court found the application was effectively a setting aside application requiring security.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Lau Fook Hoong AdamPlaintiffIndividualApplication dismissedLost
GTH Engineering & Construction Pte LtdDefendantCorporationJudgment for DefendantWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Aedit AbdullahJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Chia Chee Hyong LeonardAsia Ascent Law Corporation
Tan Hin Wa, JasonAsia Ascent Law Corporation
Lam Kuet Keng Steven JohnTemplars Law LLC

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiff filed an application challenging the adjudicator's jurisdiction before the adjudication determination was issued.
  2. The adjudication determination was issued on 1 October 2014.
  3. The plaintiff did not provide security pursuant to s 27(5) of the SOPA and O 95 r 3 of the Rules of Court.
  4. The defendant argued that the application was an attempt to set aside the adjudication determination.
  5. The plaintiff argued that the application was to stay the adjudication proceedings.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Lau Fook Hoong Adam v GTH Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd, Originating Summons No 915 of 2014, [2015] SGHC 220
  2. Lau Fook Hoong Adam v GTH Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd, , [2015] SGHC 141
  3. Lee Wee Lick Terence (alias Li Weili Terence) v Chua Say Eng (formerly trading as Weng Fatt Construction Engineering) and another appeal, , [2013] 1 SLR 401
  4. Citiwall Safety Glass Pte Ltd v Mansource Interior Pte Ltd, , [2015] 1 SLR 797

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Plaintiff filed application challenging adjudication application
Adjudication determination issued
Hearing of the matter
Original Judgment issued
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Jurisdiction of Adjudicator
    • Outcome: The court held that the plaintiff's application was effectively a setting aside application and required security.
    • Category: Jurisdictional
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Invalid appointment of adjudicator
    • Related Cases:
      • [2013] 1 SLR 401
  2. Setting Aside Adjudication Determination
    • Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff's application, if successful, would be tantamount to setting aside the adjudication determination.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration that adjudication application is null and void
  2. Stay of adjudication proceedings

9. Cause of Actions

  • Challenging Adjudicator's Jurisdiction

10. Practice Areas

  • Construction Litigation
  • Arbitration

11. Industries

  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Lee Wee Lick Terence (alias Li Weili Terence) v Chua Say Eng (formerly trading as Weng Fatt Construction Engineering) and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2013] 1 SLR 401SingaporeCited for the principle that jurisdictional challenges to an adjudicator's appointment should be raised immediately with the court.
Citiwall Safety Glass Pte Ltd v Mansource Interior Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2015] 1 SLR 797SingaporeCited regarding the High Court’s jurisdiction and powers in a section 27 SOPA challenge, but the court found it not a controlling authority on the issue in this case.
Lau Fook Hoong Adam v GTH Engineering & Construction Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2015] SGHC 141SingaporeThe Original Judgment which this judgment supplements.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court O 95 r 3

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Security of Payment Act (SOPA) s 27(5)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Adjudication determination
  • Jurisdictional challenge
  • Security of Payment Act
  • Setting aside application
  • Adjudicator's jurisdiction

15.2 Keywords

  • adjudication
  • SOPA
  • jurisdiction
  • construction
  • security
  • setting aside

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Adjudication75
Security of Payment70
Construction Law65
Civil Procedure50
Arbitration30

16. Subjects

  • Construction Dispute
  • Adjudication
  • Civil Procedure