Fujitec v GS Engineering: Security of Payment Act & 'Calendar Days' Interpretation

In Fujitec Singapore Corp Ltd v GS Engineering & Construction Corp, the High Court of Singapore dismissed the respondent's application to set aside an adjudication determination made in favor of the applicant under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act. The respondent argued that the adjudication application was filed prematurely and was invalid due to missing information. The court, presided over by Lee Seiu Kin J, rejected these arguments, holding that 'calendar days' in the contract included public holidays and that the missing documents were not critical to the validity of the adjudication application. The court dismissed the application on 17 December 2015.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Respondent’s application to set aside the adjudication determination dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Fujitec Singapore Corp Ltd v GS Engineering & Construction Corp: Court interprets 'calendar days' in a construction contract under the SOPA.

1.7 Decision Date

16 December 2015

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
FUJITEC SINGAPORE CORPORATION LTD	Applicant	Corporation	Application allowed	Won	Tan Beng Swee of CTLC Law Corporation
GS ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION	Respondent	Corporation	Application dismissed	Lost	Melvin Chan of TSMP Law Corporation Kishan Pillay of TSMP Law Corporation

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Lee Seiu Kin	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Tan Beng Swee	CTLC Law Corporation
Melvin Chan	TSMP Law Corporation
Kishan Pillay	TSMP Law Corporation

4. Facts

The applicant served a payment claim on the respondent on 1 April 2015.
The respondent provided its payment response on 21 April 2015.
The applicant filed a notice of intention to apply for adjudication on 28 April 2015.
The applicant filed the adjudication application on 30 April 2015.
The respondent argued the adjudication application was filed prematurely.
The respondent argued the adjudication application was invalid due to missing documents.
The adjudicator determined the respondent was liable to pay the claimant $1,540,331.70.

5. Formal Citations

Fujitec Singapore Corp Ltd v GS Engineering & Construction Corp, Originating Summons No 665 of 2015 (Summons No 3658 of 2015), [2015] SGHC 318

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2015-04-01	Applicant served the payment claim
2015-04-21	Respondent provided its payment response
2015-04-28	Applicant filed a notice of intention to apply for adjudication
2015-04-30	Applicant filed the adjudication application
2015-06-25	Adjudication determination made
2015-06-29	Adjudication determination amended
2015-07-14	Applicant obtained leave of court to enforce the adjudication determination
2015-07-28	Respondent filed summons to set aside the adjudication determination
2015-10-02	Court dismissed the respondent’s application
2015-12-17	Grounds for decision given

7. Legal Issues

Premature Filing of Adjudication Application
- Outcome: The court held that 'calendar days' includes public holidays, therefore the adjudication application was not filed prematurely.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Interpretation of 'calendar days' in contract
  - Calculation of dispute settlement period
Validity of Adjudication Application
- Outcome: The court held that the omission of certain contract terms did not invalidate the adjudication application.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Compliance with Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Regulations
  - Omission of relevant contract terms

8. Remedies Sought

Setting aside of adjudication determination

9. Cause of Actions

Claim pursuant to a payment claim under a construction sub-contract

10. Practice Areas

Construction Litigation
Commercial Litigation
Adjudication

11. Industries

Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Tienrui Design & Construction Pte Ltd v G & Y Trading and Manufacturing Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2015] 5 SLR 852	Singapore	Cited for the holding that the dispute settlement period runs from the date on which the payment response is required to be provided.
Woo Kah Wai and another v Chew Ai Hua Sandra	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] 4 SLR 166	Singapore	Cited to support the interpretation that 'calendar days' includes public holidays and weekends.
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 not all breaches of provisions are of such fundamental importance that a breach would invalidate the process.

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

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Adjudication determination
Payment claim
Payment response
Calendar days
Dispute settlement period
Security of Payment Act
Construction contract

15.2 Keywords

Security of Payment Act
Construction adjudication
Calendar days
Payment claim
Singapore High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act	95
Construction Law	90
Building and Construction Contracts	80
Contract Law	60
Civil Procedure	40
Arbitration	30

16. Subjects

Construction Dispute
Adjudication
Contract Interpretation
Security of Payment