Newcon Builders v Sino New Steel: Adjudication Application, Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act
In Newcon Builders Pte Ltd v Sino New Steel Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore addressed an application by Newcon Builders to set aside an adjudication determination made in favor of Sino New Steel under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act. Newcon Builders argued that the adjudication application was premature and that the adjudicator exceeded his powers. The court, presided over by Assistant Registrar Chan Wei Sern Paul, dismissed the application, holding that the grounds did not justify the exercise of the court’s supervisory jurisdiction. The court ordered Newcon Builders to pay costs of $7,000 plus reasonable disbursements to Sino New Steel.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application to set aside the adjudication determination was dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
High Court case between Newcon Builders and Sino New Steel regarding a premature adjudication application under the SOP Act. Application dismissed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Newcon Builders Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Sino New Steel Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Application Successfully Defended | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Wei Sern Paul | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The plaintiff was the main contractor and the defendant was the sub-contractor for a house construction project.
- A dispute arose regarding a progress payment claimed by the defendant.
- The dispute was initially resolved by adjudication under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act.
- The plaintiff sought to set aside the adjudication determination, claiming the adjudication application was premature.
- The plaintiff also argued that the adjudicator acted beyond his powers by allowing the defendant to lower its claim during adjudication.
- The adjudicator considered the issue of whether the adjudication application was submitted prematurely.
- The adjudicator also considered the fact that parties agreed to a different set of rates other than the one initially settled upon.
5. Formal Citations
- Newcon Builders Pte Ltd v Sino New Steel Pte Ltd, Originating Summons No 228 of 2015, [2015] SGHCR 13
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff awarded a sub-contract to the defendant. | |
| Defendant served Payment Claim No. 14 on the plaintiff. | |
| Plaintiff submitted its payment response. | |
| Defendant lodged an application for adjudication to the Singapore Mediation Centre. | |
| Adjudication application was served on the plaintiff. | |
| Plaintiff filed its adjudication response. | |
| Adjudication determination was issued. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Premature Adjudication Application
- Outcome: The court held that the issue of whether an adjudication application was filed prematurely was not one that fell to be considered by the High Court in a setting aside application.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2013] 1 SLR 401
- [2009] SGHC 156
- Adjudicator Acting Beyond Powers
- Outcome: The court held that the adjudicator did not act beyond his powers in accepting lower rates for payment relating to corten steel cladding and steel windows and doors.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2015] 2 SLR 70
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside of adjudication determination
9. Cause of Actions
- Setting aside of adjudication determination
10. Practice Areas
- Construction 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 | Seminal decision regarding the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction in setting aside adjudication determinations. |
| R v Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal | N/A | Yes | [1952] 1 KB 338 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that superior courts possess an inherent jurisdiction to control inferior tribunals. |
| Haron bin Mundir v Singapore Amateur Athletic Association | N/A | Yes | [1991] 2 SLR(R) 494 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of 'supervisory jurisdiction' as the inherent power of superior courts to review proceedings of inferior courts and tribunals. |
| Citiwall Safety Glass Pte Ltd v Mansource Interior Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 797 | Singapore | Cited to establish that the court, in hearing an application to set aside an adjudication determination, is exercising its supervisory jurisdiction. |
| Re Mohamed Saleem Ismail | N/A | Yes | [1987] SLR(R) 380 | Singapore | Cited to distinguish between the court's supervisory and revisionary jurisdiction. |
| Chip Hup Hup Kee Construction Pte Ltd v Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 658 | Singapore | Developed a relatively constricted interpretation of the Court’s role in setting aside applications. |
| SEF Construction Pte Ltd v Skoy Connected Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 733 | Singapore | Developed a relatively constricted interpretation of the Court’s role in setting aside applications. |
| AM Associates (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Laguna National Golf and Country Club Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2009] SGHC 260 | Singapore | Developed a relatively constricted interpretation of the Court’s role in setting aside applications. |
| Sungdo Engineering & Construction (S) Pte Ltd v Italcor Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2010] 3 SLR 459 | Singapore | Applied a more generous interpretation of the court’s role. |
| YTL Construction (S) Pte Ltd v Balanced Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2014] SGHC 142 | Singapore | Involved an allegation that the adjudication application was lodged late and therefore out of time. |
| Shin Khai Construction Pte Ltd v FL Wong Construction Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2013] SGHCR 4 | Singapore | Considered an adjudication application that was lodged later than the period of entitlement stipulated under section 13(3)(a) of the Act. |
| RN & Associates Pte Ltd v TPX Builders Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 848 | Singapore | Cited as authority for the proposition that a breach of section 13(3) would attract the court’s supervisory jurisdiction; however, reliance was misplaced as it had to do with a late payment claim rather than a late adjudication application. |
| LH Aluminium Industries Pte Ltd v Newcon Builders Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 648 | Singapore | The Judge found that the adjudication application was in fact not premature. |
| Taisei Corp v Doo Ree Engineering & Trading Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2009] SGHC 156 | Singapore | A challenge was brought on the basis that the adjudication application was made prematurely. |
| WY Steel Construction Pte Ltd v OSko Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 380 | Singapore | Cited for the importance of cash flow in the building and construction industry. |
| Quanta Industries Pte Ltd v Strategic Construction Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 70 | Singapore | Involved a situation in which the adjudicator determined that the claimant should pay the respondent, which was a breach of section 17(2) of the Act. |
| JRP & Associates Pte Ltd v Kindly Construction & Services Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2015] SGHC 86 | Singapore | The Court has a limited role when it comes to setting aside an adjudication determination made under the Act given the speedy and economical nature of the adjudication procedure. |
| Chip Hup Hup Kee Construction Pte Ltd v Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2008] SGHC 159 | Singapore | The Act recognises that the fastest and most efficient means of disposing of the dispute is through settlement. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5) |
| O. 95 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) |
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) section 27(5) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) section 11(1)(b) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) section 13(3)(a) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) section 16(2)(a) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) section 12(2) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) section 12(4) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) section 17(3) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) section 17(2) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Adjudication
- Adjudication application
- Adjudication determination
- Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act
- Payment claim
- Payment response
- Supervisory jurisdiction
- Premature application
- Dispute settlement period
15.2 Keywords
- Adjudication
- Construction
- Payment
- Singapore
- SOP Act
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act | 85 |
| Construction Law | 75 |
| Contract Law | 60 |
| Arbitration | 50 |
| Civil Procedure | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Construction Dispute
- Arbitration
- Contract Law