Bumi Geo Engineering v Civil Tech: Construction Sub-Contract Dispute over Payment for Ground Improvement Works
Bumi Geo Engineering Pte Ltd sued Civil Tech Pte Ltd in the High Court of Singapore, with Lee Seiu Kin J presiding, regarding a payment dispute arising from a construction sub-contract for ground improvement works. Bumi Geo Engineering claimed an unpaid value of its works, while Civil Tech counterclaimed for overpayment and outstanding machinery rental. The court dismissed both the plaintiff's claim and the defendant's counterclaim due to evidential shortcomings.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Both claim and counterclaim dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Dispute over payment for ground improvement works. The court dismissed both the plaintiff's claim and the defendant's counterclaim due to evidential shortcomings.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bumi Geo Engineering Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Dismissed | Raj Singh Shergill |
| Civil Tech Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Counterclaim Dismissed | Dismissed | Tan Tian Luh, Lin Zixian |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lee Seiu Kin | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Raj Singh Shergill | Lee Shergill LLP |
| Tan Tian Luh | Chancery Law Corporation |
| Lin Zixian | Chancery Law Corporation |
4. Facts
- Plaintiff was appointed as a subcontractor to carry out ground improvement works.
- The plaintiff was to install JGP columns and would be paid $92 for every cubic metre of soil treated.
- The contract called for payment of $92 per cubic metre of soil treated.
- The defendant's position was that payment would be based on the actual volume of soil treated.
- The plaintiff's position was that the overlaps should be rounded to a 10% deduction based on the nominal volumes.
- There are two versions of the contract, one produced by each party, with slightly different terms.
- The parties agree that the final sub-contract sum shall be ascertained by re-measurement based on approved as-built drawings.
5. Formal Citations
- Bumi Geo Engineering Pte Ltd v Civil Tech Pte Ltd, Suit No 803 of 2013, [2015] SGHC 261
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Defendant appointed the plaintiff as its subcontractor for ground improvement works. | |
| Contractual works completed. | |
| Defendant put out a Statement of Final Accounts. | |
| Defendant produced a revised Statement of Final Account. | |
| Plaintiff commenced action. | |
| Defendant filed its defence and counterclaim. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Contract Interpretation
- Outcome: The court found that the 'treated area method' applies to quantify the plaintiff's work.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Ambiguity in contract terms
- Re-measurement of work done
- Related Cases:
- [1998] 1 WLR 896
- [2009] 1 WLR 1988
- [2005] RPC 169
- Estoppel by Convention
- Outcome: The court found no evidence supporting the plaintiff's case in estoppel vis-à-vis the 5.77% deduction.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Assumed state of fact or law
- Unjust or unconscionable conduct
- Related Cases:
- [2008] 2 SLR(R) 474
- [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 343
- [1982] QB 84
- [2013] EWCA Civ 639
- [1951] 2 KB 215
- Admissibility of Evidence
- Outcome: The court found that the defendant had not discharged its burden of proof vis-à-vis its counterclaim due to reliance on hearsay evidence.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Hearsay evidence
- Burden of proof
- Pleadings
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff is not entitled to rely on the deductions of 10% and 18% because these percentages were not included in its pleadings.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Inconsistent plea
- Amendment of pleadings
- Related Cases:
- [2004] 4 SLR(R) 574
- [1964] MLJ 99
- [2006] EWCA Civ 25
- (1982) 148 CLR 658
- Adverse Inference
- Outcome: The court drew an adverse inference against the defendant for failing to call Ms Tay as a witness.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to call witness
- Materiality of evidence
- Related Cases:
- [2004] 1 SLR(R) 628
- [1975] VR 916
- [1998] 5 PIQR 324
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Construction Litigation
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cheong Ghim Fah and another v Murugian s/o Rangasamy | High Court | Yes | [2004] 1 SLR(R) 628 | Singapore | Cited for the principles regarding adverse inference from the absence of a witness. |
| Sembcorp Marine Ltd v PPL Holdings Pte Ltd and another and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 193 | Singapore | Cited for the significance of proper pleadings when introducing contextual evidence to construe a contract. |
| Romar Positioning Equipment Pte Ltd v Merriwa Nominees Pty Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] 4 SLR(R) 574 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that the reply cannot be used to supplement the statement of claim. |
| Kiaw Aik Hang Co Ltd v Tan Tien Choy | Unknown | Yes | [1964] MLJ 99 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that parties are strictly bound by their pleadings and the court may not decide on issues not raised therein. |
| NEC Semi-Conductors Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs | England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) | Yes | [2006] EWCA Civ 25 | England and Wales | Cited for the basic requirement that material facts should be pleaded. |
| Dare v Pulham | High Court of Australia | Yes | (1982) 148 CLR 658 | Australia | Cited for the functions of pleadings and particulars. |
| O’Donnell v Reichard | Unknown | Yes | [1975] VR 916 | Australia | Cited for the principle that the court is entitled to presume that evidence which could be and is not produced would if produced be unfavourable to the person who withholds it. |
| Wisniewski v Central Manchester Health Authority | England and Wales Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 5 PIQR 324 | England and Wales | Cited for the circumstances in which a court may be entitled to draw adverse inferences from the absence or silence of a witness. |
| Quainoo v NZ Breweries Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [1991] 1 NZLR 161 | New Zealand | Cited for the principle that the court is free to depart from the pleaded meanings to construe the contract. |
| Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society | House of Lords | Yes | [1998] 1 WLR 896 | United Kingdom | Cited for the modern starting point of contractual interpretation. |
| Attorney General of Belize and others v Belize Telecom Ltd and another | Privy Council | Yes | [2009] 1 WLR 1988 | Belize | Cited for the principle that the court may not introduce terms to make the contract fairer or more reasonable. |
| Kirin-Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [2005] RPC 169 | United Kingdom | Cited for the relevance of the context in which contractual terms were drafted. |
| Baird Textile Holdings Ltd v Marks & Spencer Plc | Unknown | Yes | [2001] CLC 999 | United Kingdom | Cited for the issue of how far an estoppel may assist in establishing a cause of action. |
| Amalgamated Investment & Property Co Ltd (in liquidation) v Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1982] QB 84 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a party may rely on an estoppel to preclude its counterparty from questioning the interpretation of a contractual term. |
| Shoreline Housing Partnership Ltd v Mears Ltd | England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) | Yes | [2013] EWCA Civ 639 | England and Wales | Cited for the distinction between setting up a contract by estoppel and alleging that an estoppel qualified the terms of the contract. |
| Combe v Combe | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1951] 2 KB 215 | England and Wales | Cited for the origin of the sword/shield dichotomy in estoppel. |
| Travista Development Pte Ltd v Tan Kim Swee Augustine and others | High Court | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 474 | Singapore | Cited for the elements required to establish an estoppel by convention. |
| The Vistafjord | Unknown | Yes | [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 343 | United Kingdom | Cited for the requirement that parties must have acted on an assumed and incorrect state of fact or law in their course of dealing to establish an estoppel by convention. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Evidence Act | Singapore |
| Evidence Act s 32(1)(b) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act s 116(g) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Jet grout pile
- JGP
- Ground improvement works
- Triangle grid spacing
- Nominal volume
- Treated area method
- As-built drawings
- Re-measurement
- Statement of Final Accounts
- Back charges
15.2 Keywords
- construction sub-contract
- payment dispute
- ground improvement works
- jet grout pile
- JGP
- triangle grid spacing
- treated area method
- estoppel
- hearsay evidence
16. Subjects
- Construction Dispute
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
17. Areas of Law
- Construction Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
- Estoppel