JRP & Associates v Kindly Construction: Security of Payment Act Adjudication Dispute
In JRP & Associates Pte Ltd v Kindly Construction & Services Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore addressed an application by Kindly Construction to set aside an adjudication determination and an Assistant Registrar's Order obtained by JRP & Associates under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act. JRP had sought to enforce the adjudication determination for $98,427.81 plus interest and costs. Kindly Construction argued that the adjudicator exceeded his powers, displayed bias, failed to comply with natural justice, and incurred unnecessary costs. The court dismissed Kindly Construction's application, finding no grounds to set aside the adjudication determination and ordering the release of funds paid into court to JRP.
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
JRP & Associates sought to enforce an adjudication determination against Kindly Construction under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act. The court dismissed Kindly Construction's application to set aside the determination.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JRP & Associates Pte Ltd | Claimant | Corporation | Judgment for Claimant | Won | |
| Kindly Construction & Services Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Application dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Seng Onn | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- JRP was engaged by Kindly Construction as a sub-contractor for a project.
- A dispute arose between JRP and Kindly Construction regarding payment for work done and materials supplied.
- JRP submitted a payment claim to Kindly Construction, which was disputed.
- JRP lodged an adjudication application with the Singapore Mediation Centre.
- An adjudicator was appointed and made an adjudication determination in favor of JRP.
- Kindly Construction applied to set aside the adjudication determination.
5. Formal Citations
- JRP & Associates Pte Ltd v Kindly Construction & Services Pte Ltd, Originating Summons No 1023 of 2014 (Summons No 5789 of 2014), [2015] SGHC 86
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Letter of Intent signed | |
| JRP stopped work | |
| Kindly Construction stated they would engage other contractors and seek indemnification from JRP | |
| JRP submitted payment claim | |
| Kindly Construction sent payment response | |
| JRP lodged adjudication application with Singapore Mediation Centre | |
| Kindly Construction received a copy of the Adjudication Application | |
| SMC notified JRP that Ong Ser Huan had been appointed as the adjudicator | |
| Adjudication conference held | |
| Adjudication conference held | |
| Site inspection took place | |
| Adjudication conference held | |
| Adjudication Determination rendered | |
| JRP obtained leave of court to enforce adjudication determination | |
| Kindly Construction paid into court a sum of $105,317.76 | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Natural Justice
- Outcome: The court found that the adjudicator did not breach the rules of natural justice.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Apparent bias
- Failure to provide an adequate opportunity to be heard
- Exceeding Powers Under the Act
- Outcome: The court found that the adjudicator technically acted in excess of his powers but that this was not a sufficient ground to set aside the adjudication determination.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Calling for an adjudication conference before the commencement of the adjudication
- Incurring Unnecessary Costs
- Outcome: The court found that whether or not the adjudicator incurred unnecessary costs was not a valid ground for setting aside the adjudication determination.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside the Adjudication Determination
- Setting aside the AR's Order
9. Cause of Actions
- Enforcement of Adjudication Determination
10. Practice Areas
- Construction Litigation
- Commercial Litigation
- Adjudication
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 the Act seeks to establish a fast and low cost adjudication system to resolve payment disputes. |
| WY Steel Construction Pte Ltd v Osko Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 380 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that cash flow is the life blood of those in the building and construction industry. |
| SEF Construction Pte Ltd v Skoy Connected Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 733 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court's role is limited when it comes to setting aside an adjudication determination. |
| Quanta Industries Pte Ltd v Strategic Construction Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2015] SGHC 02 | Singapore | Cited to argue that the Adjudication Determination should be set aside since the Adjudicator had acted in excess of the powers conferred by the Act when he called for an adjudication conference on 29 September 2014, before the commencement of the adjudication. |
| Chia Hup Hup Kee Construction Pte Ltd v Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 658 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an adjudicator is seized of jurisdiction when appointed by SMC. |
| Re Shankar Alan s/o Anant Kulkarni | High Court | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 85 | Singapore | Cited for the test for apparent bias. |
| Primus Build Limited v Pompey Centre Limited, Slidesilver Limited | High Court of Justice | Yes | [2009] EWHC 1487 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that an adjudicator is obliged to go back to the parties with his new calculation. |
| Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd v The London Borough of Lambeth | High Court of Justice | Yes | [2002] EWHC 597 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that an adjudicator should inform the parties and obtain their views if he intends to use a method which was not agreed and has not been put forward as appropriate by either party. |
| Herbosh-Kiere Marine Contractors Limited v Dover Harbour Board | High Court of Justice | Yes | [2012] EWHC 84 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the court declined to enforce an adjudicator’s decision on the basis that the adjudicator had breached the rules of natural justice by deciding the case on a basis not argued by either party at any stage. |
| Joseph Musico (aka Giuseppe Musico) and Ors v Philip Davenport and Ors | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | [2003] NSWSC 977 | Australia | Cited for the principle that if an adjudicator is minded to come to a particular determination on a particular ground for which neither party has contended then, in my opinion, the requirements of natural justice require the adjudicator to give the parties notice of that intention so that they may put submissions on it. |
| Soh Beng Tee & Co Pte Ltd v Fairmount Development Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR 86 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an arbitrator is entitled to embrace a middle path in making a determination as long as it is based on evidence that is before the arbitrator. |
| AQU v AQV | High Court | Yes | [2015] SGHC 26 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the principles of natural justice are not breached just because an arbitrator comes to a conclusion that is not argued by either party as long as that conclusion reasonably flows from the parties’ arguments. |
| Chip Hup Hup Kee Construction Pte Ltd v Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2008] SGHC 159 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the rules of natural justice must be applied in the context of the Act, and in particular, the need for a quick method of adjudication to facilitate cash flow. |
| Pacific Recreation Pte Ltd v S Y Technology Inc and Another Appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 491 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the principles of natural justice are not breached just because an arbitrator comes to a conclusion that is not argued by either party as long as that conclusion reasonably flows from the parties’ arguments. |
| TMM Division Maritima SA de CV v Pacific Richfield Marine Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 972 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that arbitrators cannot be so straightjacketed as to be permitted to only adopt in their conclusions the premises put forward by the parties. |
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 27 | 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 13(1) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) s 15 | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) s 16 | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) s 17(1)(b) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) s 18 | 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 14(1) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 | Australia |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Adjudication Determination
- Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act
- Payment Claim
- Payment Response
- Adjudication Application
- Adjudicator
- Natural Justice
- Apparent Bias
- Commencement of Adjudication
15.2 Keywords
- construction
- adjudication
- security of payment
- payment dispute
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act | 95 |
| Building and Construction Contracts | 80 |
| Construction Law | 75 |
| Contract Law | 60 |
| Arbitration | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Construction Dispute
- Adjudication
- Security of Payment