UES Holdings v Grouteam: Setting Aside Adjudication Determination for Out-of-Time Payment Claim under SOPA
In UES Holdings Pte Ltd v Grouteam Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore considered an application by UES Holdings to set aside an adjudication determination under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act. UES Holdings, the plaintiff, argued that Grouteam's payment claim was defective and served out of time. The court, presided over by Justice Quentin Loh, found that the payment claim was indeed served out of time, violating a mandatory condition of the Act. Consequently, the court allowed UES Holdings' application and set aside the adjudication determination.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Plaintiff's application allowed and the Adjudication Determination set aside.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
UES Holdings sought to set aside an adjudication determination, arguing Grouteam's payment claim was served out of time. The High Court allowed the application.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UES Holdings Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application Allowed | Won | |
| GROUTEAM PTE LTD | Defendant | Corporation | Adjudication Determination Set Aside | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Quentin Loh | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Ian de Vaz | WongPartnership LLP |
| Melanie Chew | WongPartnership LLP |
| Radika Mariapan | I.R.B Law LLP |
4. Facts
- UES Holdings was engaged as a main contractor by Changi Airport Group for a project.
- UES Holdings entered into a sub-contract with Grouteam to carry out civil, structural, and architectural works.
- Grouteam served Payment Claim No. 18 on UES Holdings on 20 April 2015.
- UES Holdings did not provide a payment response, so Grouteam served a notice of intention to apply for adjudication.
- UES Holdings then issued Payment Response No. 18 on 20 May 2015.
- The adjudicator ordered UES Holdings to pay Grouteam $2,905,683.89.
- UES Holdings applied to set aside the adjudication determination on three grounds.
5. Formal Citations
- UES Holdings Pte Ltd v Grouteam Pte Ltd, Originating Summons No 649 of 2015, [2015] SGHC 275
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Sub-contract dated | |
| Defendant served Payment Claim No. 18 on the Plaintiff | |
| Defendant served a notice of intention to apply for adjudication and lodged an adjudication application with the Singapore Mediation Centre | |
| Plaintiff issued Payment Response No. 18 | |
| The SMC served a copy of the Adjudication Application on the Plaintiff | |
| Adjudicator rendered his determination | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Defective Payment Claim
- Outcome: The court found that the payment claim was served out of time, violating section 10(2)(a) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Service of payment claim out of time
- Defective Notice of Intention and Adjudication Application
- Outcome: The court found that the Notice of Intention and Adjudication Application were served out of time.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Service of notice of intention out of time
- Service of adjudication application out of time
- Defective Adjudication Application
- Outcome: The court found that the Defendant did not fail to provide extracts of the terms or conditions of the contract that are relevant to the payment claim dispute as required under 13(3)(c) of the Act read with reg 7(2)(d) of the Regulations.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to include relevant extracts of contract terms
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside of Adjudication Determination
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Construction Litigation
- Commercial Litigation
- Adjudication
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jurong Engineering Ltd v Paccan Building Technology Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR(R) 849 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a document may be incorporated into a contract mutatis mutandis without express use of the words 'mutatis mutandis'. |
| 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 | Cited for the principle that the court may set aside an adjudication determination if the claimant has not complied with a mandatory provision of the Act. |
| Lau Fook Hoong Adam v GTH Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2015] SGHC 141 | Singapore | Cited for the view that section 10(2)(a) of the Act is framed in mandatory terms and must be observed strictly. |
| W Y Steel Construction Pte Ltd v Osko Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 380 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that parties enter into an expedited dispute resolution process under the Act, with strict deadlines for payment claims and responses. |
| Citiwall Safety Glass Pte Ltd v Mansource Interior Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] SGCA 42 | Singapore | Cited for reaffirming the view that timelines under the SOPA have to be strictly complied with. |
| Newcon Builders v Sino New Steel Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2015] SGHC 226 | Singapore | Cited for highlighting that if a party wishes to avail itself of the statutory scheme for speedy payment, it has to ensure that the timelines, which is a key feature of the scheme, must be complied with. |
| Chin Ivan v H P Construction & Engineering Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] SGCA 14 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that litigation and arbitration are still available even if the statutory scheme cannot be invoked. |
| Chai Cher Watt (trading as Chuang Aik Engineering Works) v SDL Technologies Pte Ltd and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 1 SLR 152 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of what amounts to an unequivocal representation that a party will not insist upon its legal rights. |
| YTL Construction (S) Pte Ltd v Balanced Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2014] SGHC 142 | Singapore | Cited as an example where the Adjudication Determination was set aside because the Notice of Intention and Adjudication Application had been served out of time. |
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, s 10(2)(a) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act, s 12(5) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act, s 13(3)(c) | Singapore |
| Goods and Services Tax Act (Cap 117A, 2005 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Adjudication Determination
- Payment Claim
- Payment Response
- Sub-contract
- Main Contract
- Security of Payment Act
- PSSCOC
- SOCN
- Preliminaries
15.2 Keywords
- Construction
- Adjudication
- Payment Claim
- Security of Payment Act
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act | 90 |
| Construction Law | 75 |
| Construction Contracts | 65 |
| Contract Law | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Construction Dispute
- Adjudication
- Contract Law