Aik Heng v Deshin: Security of Payment Act Adjudication Determination Dispute
Aik Heng Contracts and Services Pte Ltd applied to enforce an adjudication determination against Deshin Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act. Deshin Engineering appealed the assistant registrar's decision, arguing the notice of intention was invalid and the adjudicator breached natural justice. The High Court dismissed Deshin's appeal and its application for a stay of execution, finding no grounds to set aside the determination.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed and application for stay of execution dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Aik Heng Contracts sought to enforce an adjudication determination under the SOPA. The court dismissed Deshin Engineering's appeal to set aside the determination.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aik Heng Contracts and Services Pte Ltd | Applicant | Corporation | Appeal Allowed | Won | Ashok Kumar Rai |
| Deshin Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Tan Joo Seng |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lee Seiu Kin | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Ashok Kumar Rai | Chan Neo LLP |
| Tan Joo Seng | Chong Chia & Lim LLC |
4. Facts
- The respondent was the main contractor for a condominium project.
- The applicant was appointed as a subcontractor for installation of aluminium, steel & glazing works.
- The applicant served a payment claim on the respondent for $85,974.19.
- The respondent did not file a payment response.
- The adjudicator determined in favor of the applicant.
- The applicant applied for leave to enforce the determination.
- The respondent sought to set aside the determination and stay its enforcement.
5. Formal Citations
- Aik Heng Contracts and Services Pte Ltd v Deshin Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd, Originating Summons No 432 of 2015 (Registrar's Appeal No 195 of 2015), [2015] SGHC 293
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Letter of Award issued | |
| Letter of Award signed and accepted by applicant | |
| Payment claim served by applicant on respondent | |
| Adjudication Application lodged | |
| Order of court granted for leave to enforce the Determination | |
| Letter of award evidencing that the applicant had secured a new project with YSR | |
| Appeal dismissed and application for stay of execution dismissed |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Natural Justice
- Outcome: The court held that there was no material breach of natural justice.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to properly adjudicate claim
- Failure to allow respondent to raise contentions
- Related Cases:
- [2013] 3 SLR 380
- Validity of Notice of Intention
- Outcome: The court held that the breach of regulation 7(1)(a) was a technical breach insufficient to invalidate the notification.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Related Cases:
- [2013] 1 SLR 401
- [2013] 2 SLR 776
- [2015] 5 SLR 689
- Stay of Enforcement of Adjudication Determination
- Outcome: The court declined to order a stay of execution of the Order.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2013] 3 SLR 380
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside of Adjudication Determination
- Stay of Enforcement of Order
9. Cause of Actions
- Enforcement of Adjudication Determination
10. Practice Areas
- Construction Law
- 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 | Cited for the principle that not all breaches of regulations warrant setting aside an adjudication determination. |
| Australian Timber Products Pte Ltd v A Pacific Construction & Development Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2013] 2 SLR 776 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a payment claim would not be invalidated for failure to comply with regulations where that failure did not impede the adjudication process. |
| Progressive Builders Pte Ltd v Long Rise Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 689 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a payment claim would only be invalidated for failure to comply with the Act where that failure impeded the adjudication process. |
| SEF Construction Pte Ltd v Skoy Connected Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 733 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a breach of section 16(3) of the Act is sufficient basis for setting aside an adjudication determination. |
| W Y Steel Construction Pte Ltd v Osko Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 380 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an adjudicator is bound to consider the payment claim and cannot make a determination as if the absence of a response obviates the need for consideration. |
| Balfour Beatty Construction Limited v The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Lambeth | N/A | Yes | [2002] BLR 288 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that the purpose of adjudication is not to be thwarted by an overly sensitive concern for procedural niceties. |
| Cantillon Ltd v Urvasco Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2008] BLR 250 | N/A | Endorsed the principles in Balfour Beatty Construction Limited v The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Lambeth. |
| Brodyn Pty Ltd (trading as Time Cost and Quality) v Davenport and another | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | (2004) 61 NSWLR 421 | New South Wales | Cited for the principle that an adjudication determination would be void if there had been a substantial denial of natural justice. |
| Watpac Constructions v Austin Corp | N/A | Yes | [2010] NSWSC 168 | New South Wales | Cited for the principle that any entitlement to natural justice must accommodate the scheme of the Act, including the compressed timetable. |
| Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301 v Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 1 SLR 998 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a breach of the hearing rule does not entail that the tainted decision must be set aside. |
| The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v Reliance National Asia Re Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2009] 2 SLR(R) 385 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of 'manifest errors' as oversights and blunders so obvious and obviously capable of affecting the determination as to admit of no difference of opinion. |
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 13(2) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act s 15(3) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act s 16(3) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Adjudication Determination
- Payment Claim
- Payment Response
- Notice of Intention
- Natural Justice
- Patent Error
- Stay of Execution
15.2 Keywords
- adjudication
- security of payment
- construction
- natural justice
- payment claim
- notice of intention
16. Subjects
- Construction Dispute
- Adjudication
- Security of Payment
- Breach of Natural Justice
17. Areas of Law
- Building and Construction Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
- Security of Payment