Grouteam Pte Ltd v UES Holdings Pte Ltd: Building & Construction Law, Security of Payment Act, Adjudication Determination
Grouteam Pte Ltd appealed against the High Court's decision to set aside an adjudication determination in favor of Grouteam, pursuant to the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act. UES Holdings Pte Ltd, the respondent, argued that the payment claim, notice of intention to apply for adjudication, and adjudication application were not served in good time. The Court of Appeal, comprising Sundaresh Menon CJ, Chao Hick Tin JA, and Tay Yong Kwang JA, allowed the appeal, finding that the relevant documents were served in good time based on the applicable contractual provisions.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding setting aside an adjudication determination under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act. The court allowed the appeal.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GROUTEAM PTE LTD | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Allowed | Won | Radika Mariapan |
| UES HOLDINGS PTE LTD | Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Ian de Vaz, Tay Bing Wei, Chua MingHao |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Chao Hick Tin | Judge of Appeal | No |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Radika Mariapan | IRB Law LLP |
| Ian de Vaz | WongPartnership LLP |
| Tay Bing Wei | WongPartnership LLP |
| Chua MingHao | WongPartnership LLP |
4. Facts
- UES Holdings engaged as main contractor by Changi Airport Group for relocation of pumphouse and substation.
- UES Holdings sub-contracted 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 to Payment Claim No 18.
- Grouteam served a notice of intention to apply for adjudication and lodged an adjudication application on 20 May 2015.
- UES Holdings issued Payment Response No 18 on the same day it was served with the notice of intention.
- Adjudicator ordered UES Holdings to pay $2,905,683.89 to Grouteam on 19 June 2015.
5. Formal Citations
- Grouteam Pte Ltd v UES Holdings Pte Ltd, Civil Appeal No 210 of 2015, [2016] SGCA 59
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Main Contract signed between UES Holdings Pte Ltd and Changi Airport Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd | |
| Summary of Contract Negotiations entered into | |
| Sub-Contract signed between UES Holdings Pte Ltd and Grouteam Pte Ltd | |
| Grouteam Pte Ltd served Payment Claim No 18 on UES Holdings Pte Ltd | |
| Grouteam Pte Ltd served a notice of intention to apply for adjudication on UES Holdings Pte Ltd | |
| UES Holdings Pte Ltd issued Payment Response No 18 | |
| Singapore Mediation Centre served the Adjudication Application on UES Holdings Pte Ltd | |
| Adjudication Determination issued ordering UES Holdings Pte Ltd to pay $2,905,683.89 to Grouteam Pte Ltd | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Originating Summons No 649 of 2015 filed | |
| Judgment delivered |
7. Legal Issues
- Validity of Adjudication Determination
- Outcome: The court held that the adjudication determination was valid because the payment claim, notice of intention, and adjudication application were served in good time based on the applicable contractual provision.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to serve payment claim in good time
- Failure to serve notice of intention and adjudication application in good time
- Interpretation of Contractual Provisions
- Outcome: The court interpreted the contractual provisions to determine which clause governed the service of payment claims.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Conflict between different clauses in the sub-contract
- Priority of clauses in the sub-contract
- Estoppel
- Outcome: The court held that no estoppel arose from the 29 December Email because it did not amount to an unequivocal representation by the respondent that it would not rely on its legal rights against the appellant.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Unequivocal representation
- Reliance on representation
- Waiver
- Outcome: The court considered whether the respondent had waived its right to object to the time of service of the payment claim by failing to object upon receiving it and issuing the payment response.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to object at the earliest opportunity
- Inconsistent conduct
- Jurisdiction of Adjudicator
- Outcome: The court held that the adjudicator was validly appointed because a purported payment claim was served, but the adjudicator's determination may be liable to be set aside if there was a breach of a provision of the Act.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Validity of appointment
- Compliance with statutory requirements
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside of Adjudication Determination
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Construction Litigation
- Commercial Litigation
- Arbitration
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UES Holdings Pte Ltd v Grouteam Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 312 | Singapore | The High Court decision which is being appealed against. |
| Jurong Engineering Ltd v Paccan Building Technology Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR(R) 918 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that a clause may be read mutatis mutandis to apply to the parties to a contract. |
| Chip Hup Hup Kee Construction Pte Ltd v Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 658 | Singapore | Cited regarding the jurisdiction of an adjudicator and the validity of a payment claim. |
| AM Associates (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Laguna National Golf and Country Club Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2009] SGHC 260 | Singapore | Cited regarding the jurisdiction of an adjudicator and the validity of a payment claim. |
| Sungdo Engineering & Construction (S) Pte Ltd v Italcor Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2010] 3 SLR 459 | Singapore | Cited regarding the validity of a payment claim and the court's power to review the adjudicator's appointment. |
| 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 regarding the power of the Singapore Mediation Centre to nominate an adjudicator and the existence of a valid payment claim. |
| SEF Construction Pte Ltd v Skoy Connected Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 733 | Singapore | Cited regarding the jurisdiction of an adjudicator and the validity of a payment claim. |
| W Y Steel Construction Pte Ltd v Osko Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 380 | Singapore | Cited regarding the expedited process of dispute resolution under the Act and the importance of stipulated deadlines. |
| Chase Oyster Bar v Hamo Industries | New South Wales Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] NSWCA 190 | Australia | Cited regarding the importance of time limits in ensuring prompt resolution of disputes about payment. |
| JFC Builders Pte Ltd v LionCity Construction Co Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 1157 | Singapore | Discussed and disagreed with regarding the permissibility of repeat claims under the Act. |
| RJT Consulting Engineers Ltd v DM Engineering (Northern Ireland) Ltd | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) | Yes | [2002] 1 WLR 2344 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle of 'pay now, argue later' in the context of construction contracts. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 59 r 5(b) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) |
| O 57 r 20 of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 10 of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act | Singapore |
| s 13(1) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act | Singapore |
| s 13(3)(a) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act | Singapore |
| s 11(1)(a) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act | Singapore |
| s 12(5) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Adjudication Determination
- Payment Claim
- Payment Response
- Sub-Contract
- Summary of Contract Negotiations
- Preliminaries
- Purchase Order
- Main Contract
- Security of Payment Act
- Good Time
- Interim Certificate
- Repeat Claim
- Estoppel
- Waiver
15.2 Keywords
- Adjudication
- Construction
- Payment
- Security of Payment Act
- Contract
- Building
- Dispute
16. Subjects
- Construction Dispute
- Contract Law
- Arbitration
- Security of Payment
17. Areas of Law
- Building and Construction Law
- Dispute Resolution
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
- Construction Law
- Arbitration Law