Asplenium Land v CKR Contract Services: SOPA, Prohibited Repeat Claims & Post-Termination Claims
In Asplenium Land Pte Ltd v CKR Contract Services Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore addressed an originating summons filed by Asplenium Land Pte Ltd against CKR Contract Services Pte Ltd concerning the validity of Payment Claim No. 22 under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (SOPA). The court, presided over by Judicial Commissioner Foo Chee Hock, ruled in favor of Asplenium Land, declaring Payment Claim No. 22 invalid due to the inclusion of prohibited repeat claims and post-termination claims, thus determining that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction. The court ordered CKR Contract Services to withdraw Adjudication Application No. SOP/AA 423 of 2015.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff
1.3 Case Type
Building and Construction Law
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court held that repeat claims adjudicated on their merits and post-termination claims are invalid under the SOPA.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CKR Contract Services Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Asplenium Land Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Foo Chee Hock | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Asplenium Land and CKR Contract Services entered into a contract for a residential condominium development.
- Asplenium Land terminated the contract on 24 October 2014.
- CKR Contract Services served Payment Claim No 21 on Asplenium Land on 22 December 2014.
- The adjudicator delivered his determination on 26 March 2015.
- CKR Contract Services served Payment Claim No 22 on Asplenium Land on 7 October 2015, which included claims for work done before and after the termination.
- Asplenium Land argued that the claims in PC 22 were prohibited repeat claims and post-termination claims.
- The adjudicator in AA 423 decided to hold the proceedings in abeyance pending the Court’s decision.
5. Formal Citations
- ASPLENIUM LAND PTE LTD v CKR CONTRACT SERVICES PTE LTD, HC/Originating Summons No 1100 of 2015, [2016] SGHC 85
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Contract based on amended Singapore Institute of Architects Articles and Conditions of Building Contract (9th ed, Reprint, August 2011) was entered into | |
| Contract terminated by Plaintiff | |
| Defendant commenced arbitration proceedings by way of a Request for Arbitration | |
| Defendant served Payment Claim No 21 on Plaintiff | |
| Payment Claim No 21 proceeded for adjudication in SOP/AA 27 of 2015 | |
| Adjudicator delivered determination on Payment Claim No 21 | |
| Plaintiff lodged SOP/ARA03 of 2015 for a review of the adjudicator’s determination | |
| Defendant served Payment Claim No 22 on Plaintiff | |
| Plaintiff provided Payment Response No 22 | |
| Defendant lodged SOP/AA 423 of 2015 | |
| William Nursalim’s affidavit was dated | |
| Plaintiff filed originating summons | |
| Hearing date | |
| Hearing date | |
| Hearing date | |
| Plaintiff’s Written Submissions were dated | |
| Defendant’s Written Submissions were dated | |
| Hearing date | |
| Hearing date | |
| Judgment date |
7. Legal Issues
- Prohibited Repeat Claims under SOPA
- Outcome: The court held that claims previously adjudicated on their merits are prohibited repeat claims under SOPA.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Adjudication on the merits
- Insufficiency of evidence
- Post-Termination Claims under SOPA
- Outcome: The court held that post-termination claims do not fall within SOPA's adjudication scheme for payment claims.
- Category: Substantive
- Jurisdiction of Adjudicator
- Outcome: The court held that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate on invalid payment claims.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Invalid payment claim
8. Remedies Sought
- Withdrawal of Adjudication Application
- Declaration that Payment Claim is Invalid
- Permanent Restraint from Prosecuting Adjudication
- Costs
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Construction Litigation
- Commercial Litigation
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 claims adjudicated on their merits are excluded from subsequent payment claims. |
| Dualcorp Pty Ltd v Remo Constructions Pty Ltd | New South Wales Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] NSWCA 69 | Australia | Cited as a case regarding amounts in previous claims which have been adjudicated upon on their merits. |
| Doolan v Rubikcon (Qld) Pty Ltd | Queensland Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 2 Qd R 117 | Australia | Cited as a case regarding amounts in previous claims which have been adjudicated upon on their merits. |
| Doo Ree Engineering & Trading Pte Ltd v Taisei Corporation | High Court | Yes | [2009] SGHC 218 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the court disagreed that section 10(1) of the Act prohibits all repeat claims. |
| Admin Construction Pte Ltd v Vivaldi (S) Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 609 | Singapore | Cited for the analysis of repeat claims and the circumstances under which they are prohibited under SOPA. |
| AE & E Australia Pty Ltd v Stowe Australia Pty Ltd | Queensland Supreme Court | Yes | [2010] QSC 135 | Australia | Cited for the principle that a dismissal of a claim for insufficiency or want of evidence must be an adjudication on the merits. |
| JFC Builders Pte Ltd v LionCity Construction Co Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 1157 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the court decided that a repeat claim was invalid, but which the present court respectfully differed from. |
| Lau Fook Hoong Adam v GTH Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 516 | Singapore | Cited by the Defendant, but distinguished by the court due to the adjudication proceeding before the jurisdictional issue was determined. |
| McConnell Dowell Constructors (Aust) Pty Ltd v Heavy Plant Leasing Pty Ltd | Queensland Supreme Court | Yes | [2013] QSC 269 | Australia | Cited for the reasoning that tools and equipment withheld at the site after the termination of the contract were not supplied “under a contract” pursuant to s 5 of SOPA. |
| Coordinated Construction Co Pty Ltd v JM Hargreaves (NSW) Pty Ltd & Ors | New South Wales Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] NSWCA 228 | Australia | Cited for the principle that the label attached to the relief was not conclusive. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap. 30B) | Singapore |
| Section 10(1) of SOPA | Singapore |
| Section 17(5) of SOPA | Singapore |
| Section 5 of SOPA | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Security of Payment Act
- SOPA
- Payment Claim
- Adjudication
- Prohibited Repeat Claims
- Post-Termination Claims
- Jurisdiction
- Construction Contract
- Progress Payment
- Adjudication Application
15.2 Keywords
- SOPA
- Security of Payment
- Construction Law
- Adjudication
- Payment Claim
- Repeat Claims
- Post-Termination Claims
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Construction Law | 95 |
| Alternative Dispute Resolution | 75 |
| Arbitration | 60 |
| Breach of Contract | 50 |
| Contract Law | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Construction Dispute
- Adjudication
- Contract Law