Kingsford Construction v A Deli Construction: SOPA, Adjudication & Natural Justice
Kingsford Construction Pte Ltd applied to set aside two adjudication determinations obtained by A Deli Construction Pte Ltd under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (SOPA). The High Court dismissed Kingsford's applications, finding that the payment claims were valid and there was no breach of natural justice by the adjudicators. The court ordered Kingsford to release payment to Deli.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Applications to set aside the adjudication determinations were dismissed with costs.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Kingsford's applications to set aside adjudication determinations (AD) by A Deli Construction were dismissed. The court found no breach of natural justice.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A DELI CONSTRUCTION PTE LTD | Applicant, Respondent | Corporation | Applications to set aside the adjudication determinations were dismissed with costs. | Won | |
| KINGSFORD CONSTRUCTION PTE LTD | Respondent, Applicant | Corporation | Applications to set aside the adjudication determinations were dismissed with costs. | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tan Siong Thye | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Kingsford was the main contractor for construction works at Hillview Peak.
- A Deli Construction was a subcontractor appointed by Kingsford to supply labor, small tools, and equipment.
- There were two subcontracts between the parties for different blocks at Hillview Peak.
- A Deli Construction served Payment Claim No 15 under both subcontracts on 20 January 2017.
- Kingsford did not lodge payment responses for both claims.
- A Deli Construction issued Notices of Intention to Apply for Adjudication in respect of AA45 and AA43.
- Two adjudicators delivered separate adjudication determinations directing Kingsford to pay A Deli Construction.
5. Formal Citations
- Kingsford Construction Pte Ltd v A Deli Construction Pte Ltd, Originating Summons Nos 460 and 362 of 2017 (Summons No 1738 of 2017), [2017] SGHC 174
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Letter of Acceptance for Block 103 and 105 subcontract signed | |
| Letter of Acceptance for Block 101 subcontract signed | |
| Completion date under both subcontracts | |
| A Deli Construction served Payment Claim No 15 under both subcontracts | |
| A Deli Construction issued a Notice of Intention to Apply for Adjudication in respect of AA45 | |
| A Deli Construction issued a Notice of Intention to Apply for Adjudication in respect of AA43 | |
| Adjudicator Giam Chin Toon SC delivered his AD in AA43 | |
| Adjudicator Christopher Chuah delivered his AD in AA45 | |
| Hearing of Kingsford's applications to set aside the ADs | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Validity of Payment Claims
- Outcome: The court held that the payment claims were valid as they complied with s 10 of the SOPA and reg 5 of the SOPA Regulations.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Compliance with SOPA
- Compliance with SOPA Regulations
- Whether payment claims were made after finalisation of accounts
- Breach of Natural Justice
- Outcome: The court held that there was no breach of natural justice as the adjudicators were precluded from considering Kingsford's arguments on set-off and counterclaim due to Kingsford's failure to file payment responses.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to consider set-off
- Failure to consider counterclaim
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside of adjudication determinations
- Stay of execution pending appeal
9. Cause of Actions
- Enforcement of Adjudication Determination
- Setting Aside of Adjudication Determination
10. Practice Areas
- Construction Law
- Commercial Litigation
- Arbitration
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grouteam Pte Ltd v UES Holdings Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 5 SLR 1011 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that objections to an adjudicator's jurisdiction should be raised at the earliest possible opportunity to avoid delaying proceedings. |
| 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 test to determine the validity of a payment claim, which is whether it satisfies the formal requirements in s 10(3)(a) of the Act and reg 5(2) of the SOPR. |
| Vinod Kumar Ramgopal Didwania v Hauslab Design & Build Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 890 | Singapore | Cited to reiterate that an adjudication determination binds the parties until their differences are ultimately and conclusively determined or resolved by arbitration or litigation. |
| Lau Fook Hoong Adam v GTH Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2015] 4 SLR 615 | Singapore | Cited by Kingsford to support its argument that the two Payment Claims No 15 were invalid as the two Payment Claims No 14 were labelled as the final payments, but distinguished by the court. |
| W Y Steel Construction Pte Ltd v Osko Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 380 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an adjudicator must consider the material properly before him even where no response has been filed, and for the circumstances where a stay of enforcement of an adjudication determination may be justified. |
| Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co Ltd v International Elements Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2016] 4 SLR 626 | Singapore | Cited for the reasoning that the purpose of the SOPA militates in favor of releasing the monies paid into court pending appeal. |
| Lim Poh Yeoh (alias Aster Lim) v TS Ong Construction Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHC 11 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that parties should not be allowed to withhold payment of the adjudicated sum whilst seeking to effectively overturn the adjudication determination at the same time. |
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 |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act s 10 | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act s 15(3)(a) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Adjudication Determination
- Payment Claim
- Payment Response
- Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act
- Natural Justice
- Set-off
- Counterclaim
- SOPA
- SOPA Regulations
15.2 Keywords
- SOPA
- Adjudication
- Construction
- Payment Claim
- Natural Justice
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Construction Dispute
- Adjudication
- Contract Law