Ser Kim Koi v GTMS Construction: Summary Judgment, SIA Conditions, Construction Contract, Fraud
Ser Kim Koi appealed against a summary judgment in favor of GTMS Construction Pte Ltd for $620,816.32, based on interim payment certificates issued under a construction contract using the Singapore Institute of Architects' Articles and Conditions of Building Contract. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding serious irregularities in the architect's certification process, particularly concerning the issuance of the Completion Certificate and subsequent interim payment certificates. The court set aside the judgment and orders for costs entered below by the Assistant Registrar and the Judge.
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 against summary judgment for $620,816.32 based on interim payment certificates. The court allowed the appeal, finding serious irregularities in certification.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ser Kim Koi | Appellant, Defendant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | Mohan Reviendran Pillay, Yeo Boon Tat, Danna Er |
| GTMS Construction Pte Ltd | Respondent, Plaintiff | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Thulasidas s/o Rengasamy Suppramaniam |
| Chan Sau Yan | Third Parties | Individual | No specific outcome | Neutral | |
| Chan Sau Yan Associates | Third Parties | Other | No specific outcome | Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Judge of Appeal | No |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Judge of Appeal | No |
| Quentin Loh | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Mohan Reviendran Pillay | MPillay |
| Yeo Boon Tat | MPillay |
| Danna Er | MPillay |
| Thulasidas s/o Rengasamy Suppramaniam | Ling Das & Partners |
4. Facts
- Appellant contracted with Respondent for construction of three detached houses.
- The contract used the Singapore Institute of Architects' Articles and Conditions of Building Contract.
- The Architect issued a Completion Certificate despite the Buildings failing the first TOP inspection.
- Interim Certificates 25 and 26 were issued after the Completion Certificate.
- Appellant alleged extensive defects and non-compliant works.
- The Architect certified payment for landscaping works despite the wrong type of soil being used.
- The Architect certified payment for timber flooring despite the wrong thickness being used.
5. Formal Citations
- Ser Kim Koi v GTMS Construction Pte Ltd, Civil Appeal No 163 of 2014, [2016] SGCA 7
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Architect engaged under memorandum of agreement. | |
| Respondent submitted tender. | |
| Architect recommended accepting Respondent's tender. | |
| Letter of Acceptance issued. | |
| Original contract completion date. | |
| Completion date extended by Architect. | |
| First inspection by Building and Construction Authority failed. | |
| Completion Certificate issued. | |
| Second Temporary Occupation Permit inspection failed. | |
| Interim Certificate No 25 issued. | |
| Temporary Occupation Permit obtained. | |
| Interim Certificate No 26 issued. | |
| Suit 50 of 2014 commenced. | |
| Notice of Appeal filed. | |
| Appeal heard. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Fraud
- Outcome: The court found that the architect's conduct in issuing the Completion Certificate and Interim Certificates was reckless and amounted to fraud, thus depriving the certificates of temporary finality.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Reckless certification by architect
- Related Cases:
- (1889) 14 App Cas 337
- Temporary Finality of Interim Payment Certificates
- Outcome: The court held that the interim payment certificates did not have temporary finality due to the architect's failure to certify strictly in accordance with the terms of the contract.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2015] 3 SLR 124
- [1991] 1 SLR(R) 622
- Validity of Completion Certificate
- Outcome: The court found that the Completion Certificate was not validly issued because the conditions for its issuance under the SIA Conditions were not satisfied.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Construction Contracts
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GTMS Construction Pte Ltd v Ser Kim Koi (Chan Sau Yan and Chan Sau Yan Associates, third parties) | High Court | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 671 | Singapore | Cited as the judgment being appealed against. |
| Wu Yang Construction Group Ltd v Zhejiang Jinyi Group Co Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 451 | Singapore | Cited regarding the standard of proof required to prove fraud. |
| Chin Ivan v H P Construction & Engineering Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 3 SLR 124 | Singapore | Cited for its comprehensive and authoritative judgment on the ambit and extent of the temporary finality accorded to interim payment certificates under the SIA Conditions. |
| Lojan Properties Pte Ltd v Tropicon Contractors Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1991] 1 SLR(R) 622 | Singapore | Cited as a case discussing the temporary finality accorded to interim payment certificates under the SIA Conditions. |
| Brinks Ltd and another v Abu-Saleh and others | England and Wales Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 1 WLR 1478 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the principle that summary judgment should not be granted lightly unless the allegation of fraud is frivolous. |
| H P Construction & Engineering Pte Ltd v Chin Ivan | High Court | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 1318 | Singapore | Cited regarding the exceptions to temporary finality in the building and construction industry. |
| Derry v Peek | House of Lords | Yes | (1889) 14 App Cas 337 | United Kingdom | Cited for the classic exposition of fraud, including reckless conduct. |
| Panatron Pte Ltd and another v Lee Cheow Lee and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 435 | Singapore | Cited for endorsing the exposition of fraud in Derry v Peek. |
| Wishing Star Ltd v Jurong Town Corp | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 909 | Singapore | Cited for endorsing the exposition of fraud in Derry v Peek. |
| Wee Chiaw Sek Anna v Ng Li-Ann Genevieve (sole executrix of the estate of Ng Hock Seng, deceased) and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 801 | Singapore | Cited for endorsing the exposition of fraud in Derry v Peek. |
| Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich AG v Archer Daniels Midland Co and others | High Court | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 196 | Singapore | Cited for endorsing the exposition of fraud in Derry v Peek. |
| Chu Said Thong and another v Vision Law LLC | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 375 | Singapore | Cited for endorsing the exposition of fraud in Derry v Peek. |
| Homburg Houtimport BV v Agrosin Private Ltd (The Starsin) | House of Lords | Yes | [2004] 1 AC 715 | United Kingdom | Cited for the general rule at law in the construction of documents that a term specifically drafted for a particular contract takes precedence over a standard term. |
| Fenice Investments Inc v Jerram Falkus Construction Ltd | High Court of Justice | Yes | [2009] EWHC 3272 | England and Wales | Cited for the general rule at law in the construction of documents that a term specifically drafted for a particular contract takes precedence over a standard term. |
| Multiplex Construction Pty Ltd v Sintal Enterprise Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 2 SLR(R) 530 | Singapore | Cited for approving the rule that a specifically drafted term should take precedence over printed conditions. |
| The “Chem Orchid” and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] SGCA 04 | Singapore | Cited regarding the principle that findings at the enforcement stage are prima facie and non-conclusive at the substantive and final determination of disputes. |
| The Bunga Melati 5 | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 546 | Singapore | Cited regarding the principle that findings at the enforcement stage are prima facie and non-conclusive at the substantive and final determination of disputes. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, 2014 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Building Control Act (Cap 29, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Interim Payment Certificates
- Completion Certificate
- SIA Conditions
- Temporary Finality
- Fraud
- Reckless Certification
- TOP Inspection
- Defects
- Building and Construction
- Architect
- Retention Monies
- Extension of Time
- Liquidated Damages
15.2 Keywords
- Construction Contract
- Summary Judgment
- SIA Conditions
- Fraud
- Interim Payment Certificates
- Building Defects
16. Subjects
- Construction Dispute
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
17. Areas of Law
- Building and Construction Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure