Hauslab Design & Build Pte Ltd v Vinod Kumar Ramgopal Didwania: Building and Construction Dispute over Payment Claim
In Hauslab Design & Build Pte Ltd v Vinod Kumar Ramgopal Didwania, the Singapore High Court addressed an application by the defendant, Vinod Kumar Ramgopal Didwania, to set aside an adjudication determination in favor of the plaintiff, Hauslab Design & Build Pte Ltd, concerning a payment claim under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act. The defendant argued the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction due to the absence of a contract with the plaintiff and a breach of natural justice. Justice Vinodh Coomaraswamy dismissed the application, finding the defendant failed to prove the absence of a contract and that no breach of natural justice occurred.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Defendant's application dismissed with costs.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court case involving a payment claim dispute under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act. Application to set aside adjudication determination dismissed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hauslab Design & Build Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application to set aside adjudication determination dismissed | Won | Lam Wei Yaw, Koh En Da, Matthew, Foo Jong Han Rey |
| Vinod Kumar Ramgopal Didwania | Defendant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost | Lam Kuet Keng Steven John |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Vinodh Coomaraswamy | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Lam Wei Yaw | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
| Koh En Da, Matthew | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
| Foo Jong Han Rey | KSCGP Juris LLP |
| Lam Kuet Keng Steven John | Templars Law LLC |
4. Facts
- Defendant entered into a construction contract with Hauslab D&B Pte Ltd in April 2013.
- Plaintiff served a payment claim on the defendant under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act.
- Defendant failed to satisfy the payment claim.
- Plaintiff proceeded to have its claim adjudicated.
- Defendant resisted the adjudication, arguing he had no contract with the plaintiff.
- Adjudicator rejected the defendant’s argument and found in the plaintiff’s favor.
- Defendant applied to set aside the leave to enforce the adjudication determination.
5. Formal Citations
- Hauslab Design & Build Pte Ltd v Vinod Kumar Ramgopal Didwania, Originating Summons No 312 of 2015 (Summons No 2030 of 2015), [2016] SGHC 222
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Construction contract signed between defendant and Hauslab D&B Pte Ltd. | |
| Project engineer submitted application to BCA for change of builder. | |
| Defendant received system-generated email from BCA acknowledging receipt of application and forwarded it to Mr. Tan. | |
| BCA issued permit to carry out structural works naming plaintiff as builder. | |
| Plaintiff forwarded progress claim 18 to the defendant. | |
| Plaintiff gave defendant notice of intention to make an adjudication application. | |
| Plaintiff lodged adjudication application with Singapore Mediation Centre. | |
| SMC served adjudication application on the defendant. | |
| SMC appointed the adjudicator and served notice of appointment on the parties. | |
| Defendant lodged adjudication response with the SMC. | |
| Adjudicator sent email to parties requesting replies, rebuttals or additional information. | |
| Defendant replied to the adjudicator acknowledging communication. | |
| Plaintiff's solicitors lodged written submissions, documents, and authorities with the adjudicator. | |
| Defendant's solicitors objected to plaintiff's submissions and requested right of reply. | |
| Adjudicator extended deadline for final submissions to 5:00 pm on the same day. | |
| Defendant informed adjudicator of lawyers' unavailability and requested extension. | |
| Adjudicator maintained deadline of 5:00 pm. | |
| Defendant's solicitors submitted written submissions, documents, and authorities to the adjudicator. | |
| Adjudicator rejected defendant's submissions. | |
| Adjudicator issued adjudication determination in favor of the plaintiff. | |
| Plaintiff secured leave of court to enforce adjudication determination. | |
| Defendant filed setting-aside application and paid sum into court. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Judgment date. |
7. Legal Issues
- Jurisdiction of Adjudicator
- Outcome: The court found that the adjudicator did have jurisdiction as the defendant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that he never agreed to novate his construction contract.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Breach of Natural Justice
- Outcome: The court found that the adjudicator did not breach the principles of natural justice.
- Category: Procedural
- Validity of Novation
- Outcome: The court found that the defendant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that he never agreed to novate his construction contract.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Order setting aside the adjudication determination
- Order setting aside the leave granted to the plaintiff to enforce the adjudication determination
9. Cause of Actions
- Enforcement of Adjudication Determination
- Setting Aside Adjudication Determination
10. Practice Areas
- Construction Law
- 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 regarding the court's role in deciding jurisdictional issues and compliance with natural justice, not the adjudicator's. |
| Citiwall Safety Glass Pte Ltd v Mansource Interior Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 797 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the power to set aside an adjudication determination arises at common law and the court's role is restricted to fundamental procedural grounds. |
| W Y Steel Construction Pte Ltd v Osko Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 380 | Singapore | Cited for the purpose of the Act to facilitate cash flow in the building and construction industry and the objective of achieving a quick decision on a payment claim. |
| SEF Construction Pte Ltd v Skoy Connected Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 733 | Singapore | Cited for the seven grounds for setting aside an adjudication award. |
| Macob Civil Engineering Ltd v Morrison Construction Ltd | High Court of Justice | Yes | [1999] All ER (D) 143 | England and Wales | Cited for the usual remedy for failure to pay in accordance with an adjudicator’s decision. |
| Project Consultancy Group v Trustees of the Gray Trust | High Court of Justice | No | (1999) 65 ConLR 146 | England and Wales | Cited by the defendant, but distinguished by the judge as unhelpful due to differences in the adjudication regime. |
| Chase Oyster Bar Pty Ltd v Hamo Industries Pty Ltd | New South Wales Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] NSWCA 190 | Australia | Cited for the principle that proceedings are brought as judicial review proceedings invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the court. |
| St Hilliers Contracting Pty Ltd v Dualcorp Civil Pty Ltd | New South Wales Supreme Court | Yes | [2010] NSWSC 1468 | Australia | Cited for the principle that the appropriate form of relief is an order in the nature of certiorari quashing or setting aside the adjudication. |
| Fifty Property Investments Pty Ltd v Barry J O'Mara & Anor | New South Wales Supreme Court | No | [2006] NSWSC 428 | Australia | Cited by the defendant, but distinguished by the judge as not supporting the defendant's submission. |
| Grave v Blazevic Holdings Pty Limited | New South Wales Court of Appeal | No | [2010] NSWCA 324 | Australia | Cited by the defendant, but distinguished by the judge as offering no guidance on the approach to a setting-aside application. |
| Filadelfia Projects Pty Ltd v EntirITy Business Services Pty Ltd | New South Wales Supreme Court | No | [2010] NSWSC 473 | Australia | Cited by the defendant, but distinguished by the judge as not considering the test to be applied on an application to set aside an adjudicator’s determination. |
| Soh Beng Tee & Co Pte Ltd v Fairmount Development Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR(R) 86 | Singapore | Cited for the test to determine whether a denial of natural justice has caused prejudice to a party to an arbitration. |
| L W Infrastructure Pte Ltd v Lim Chin San Contractors Pte Ltd and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 125 | Singapore | Cited for the test to determine whether a denial of natural justice has caused prejudice to a party to an arbitration. |
| AM Associates (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Laguna National Golf and Country Club Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2009] SGHC 260 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an application to set aside an adjudication determination for breach of the duty to comply with the principles of natural justice is not a species of appeal. |
| RN & Associates Pte Ltd v TPX Builders Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 848 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the right to have one’s case heard is not a right to have an adjudicator consider all material which the parties think are relevant. |
| Lloyd v McMahon | House of Lords | Yes | [1987] AC 625 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that the concept of audi alteram partem is an open-textured one. |
| Fairview Developments Pte Ltd v Ong & Ong Pte Ltd and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 318 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of novation. |
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 |
| s 4 of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act | Singapore |
| s 16(3) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act | Singapore |
| s 10 of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act | Singapore |
| s 11 of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act | Singapore |
| s 12(4) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act | Singapore |
| s 13(2) 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(4) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act | Singapore |
| s 14 of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act | Singapore |
| s 15 of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act | Singapore |
| s 17 of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act | Singapore |
| s 27 of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act | Singapore |
| s 21 of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act | Singapore |
| s 16(4) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act | Singapore |
| s 16(6) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act | Singapore |
| s 15(3)(a) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act | Singapore |
| Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 | England and Wales |
| s 108 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 | England and Wales |
| s 114(4) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 | England and Wales |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 | New South Wales |
| s 24 of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 | New South Wales |
| s 25(1) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 | New South Wales |
| s 25(4) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 | New South Wales |
| s 14(4) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 | New South Wales |
| s 15(2) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 | New South Wales |
| s 15(4) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 | New South Wales |
| Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act (Cap 53B, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 6 of the Building Control Act | Singapore |
| s 11(1)(f) of the Building Control Act | Singapore |
| s 48 of the Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 24 of the International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Adjudication
- Payment Claim
- Novation
- Natural Justice
- Setting-Aside Application
- Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act
- Construction Contract
15.2 Keywords
- Adjudication
- Construction
- Payment Claim
- Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act
- Singapore
- Contract
- Novation
- Natural Justice
16. Subjects
- Construction Dispute
- Adjudication
- Contract Law
17. Areas of Law
- Building and Construction Law
- Dispute Resolution
- Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures
- Contract Law