Tienrui Design v G & Y Trading: Setting Aside Adjudication Determination under SOP Act
In Tienrui Design & Construction Pte Ltd v G & Y Trading and Manufacturing Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore heard an application by Tienrui Design to set aside an adjudication determination made pursuant to the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (SOP Act). The court, presided over by Lee Seiu Kin J, dismissed the application, finding that the adjudication application had not been filed prematurely. The underlying dispute concerned a sub-contract for the supply and installation of timber doors in a building project. The court awarded costs to G & Y Trading and Manufacturing Pte Ltd.
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 Tienrui Design's application to set aside an adjudication determination, finding the application was not premature under the SOP Act.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tienrui Design & Construction Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| G & Y Trading and Manufacturing Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Costs Awarded | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lee Seiu Kin | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Monica Neo Kim Cheng | Chan Neo LLP |
| Tan Yiting Gina | Legal Solutions LLC |
4. Facts
- The plaintiff was the main contractor for a project to convert an office building into a hotel.
- The plaintiff engaged the defendant as a sub-contractor to supply and install timber doors.
- The contract sum was $399,280.00.
- The plaintiff complained about the defendant's sub-par performance.
- The plaintiff agreed to increase the frequency of payments to help the defendant's financial issues.
- The contract was terminated on 28 August 2014.
- The defendant served payment claim no 1 for work done between March 2013 and July 2014.
5. Formal Citations
- Tienrui Design & Construction Pte Ltd v G & Y Trading and Manufacturing Pte Ltd, Originating Summons No 1005 of 2014, [2015] SGHC 243
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Contract signed | |
| Variation Agreement evidenced in plaintiff's email | |
| Payment Claim served | |
| Payment Response served | |
| Contract terminated | |
| Notification of intention to apply for adjudication | |
| Adjudication application lodged with Singapore Mediation Centre | |
| Adjudicator appointed by SMC | |
| Adjudication Determination rendered | |
| Application dismissed |
7. Legal Issues
- Premature Adjudication Application
- Outcome: The court held that the adjudication application was not premature.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2013] 1 SLR 401
- [2013] SGHCR 4
- [2014] SGHC 142
- Interpretation of Contractual Terms
- Outcome: The court found that the timelines stipulated in the Agreements did not apply to payment claims and responses under the SOP Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1935] AC 96
- [1997] AC 749
- Dispute Settlement Period
- Outcome: The court held that the dispute settlement period was only set in motion after the due date of the payment response.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2014] SGHCR 10
- [2015] 1 SLR 648
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside of 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | Left open the question of whether section 13(3)(a) of SOP Act operated as a mandatory condition. |
| Shin Khai Construction Pte Ltd v FL Wong Construction Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2013] SGHCR 4 | Singapore | Held that section 13(3)(a) of SOP Act constituted a mandatory condition under the Act. |
| YTL Construction (S) Pte Ltd v Balanced Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2014] SGHC 142 | Singapore | Endorsed the decision in Shin Khai Construction that the 7-day timeline in s 13(3)(a) must be strictly observed. |
| W Y Steel Construction Pte Ltd v Osko Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 380 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that timelines under the SOP Act are tight to facilitate cash flow. |
| Chase Oyster Bar v Hamo Industries | New South Wales Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] NSWCA 190 | Australia | Cited for the importance of observing tight timelines under the Security of Payment Act. |
| TransGrid v Siemens and anor | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | [2004] NSWSC 87 | Australia | Cited for the principle of a dual railroad track system consisting of the statutory regime under the SOP Act which operates concurrently with, but is quite distinct from, the contractual regime. |
| The Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Raphael and others | House of Lords | Yes | [1935] AC 96 | United Kingdom | Cited for the cardinal rule of contractual interpretation that the court must give effect to the intention of the parties as expressed. |
| Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Life Assurance Co Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [1997] AC 749 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that contractual interpretation extends to the relevant background against which the words were used. |
| LH Aluminium Industries Pte Ltd v Newcon Builders Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2014] SGHCR 10 | Singapore | Discussed the dispute settlement period and whether it could commence after the payment response was served. |
| LH Aluminium Industries Pte Ltd v Newcon Builders Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 648 | Singapore | Addressed the issue of the dispute settlement period obliquely. |
| Zurich Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd v B-Gold Interior Design & Construction Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 1029 | Singapore | Discussed the admissibility of subsequent conduct in ascertaining contractual intention. |
| Leong Hin Chuee v Citra Group Pte Ltd and others | High Court | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 603 | Singapore | Held that the subsequent conduct of parties could be considered to determine their common intentions if such conduct was evidentially probative. |
| Jia Min Building Construction Pte Ltd v Ann Lee Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2004] 3 SLR(R) 288 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that parties that do not take care to properly incorporate their intentions in their contracts have to accept the vagaries of litigation. |
| Chase Oyster Bar Pty Ltd v Hamo Industries Pty Ltd | New South Wales Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] NSWCA 190 | Australia | Explained the importance of certainty in the time provisions of the SOP Act. |
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 2 | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) s 5 | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) s 10 | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) s 10(3) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) s 11 | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) s 11(1) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) s 11(3) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) s 12 | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) s 12(5) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) s 13 | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) s 13(3)(a) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Adjudication Determination
- Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act
- Payment Claim
- Payment Response
- Dispute Settlement Period
- Interim Certificate
- Progress Payment
- Variation Agreement
15.2 Keywords
- adjudication
- SOP Act
- construction
- payment claim
- payment response
- dispute settlement period
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act | 95 |
| Construction Law | 90 |
| Arbitration | 50 |
| Breach of Contract | 40 |
| Contract Law | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Construction Dispute
- Security of Payment
- Adjudication
- Contractual Interpretation