OGSP Engineering v. Comfort Management: SOPA Dispute over Payment Claim No. 12

In the High Court of Singapore, OGSP Engineering Pte Ltd sought to enforce an adjudication determination against Comfort Management Pte Ltd related to Payment Claim No. 12 under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act. Comfort Management applied to set aside the adjudication determination, alleging patent errors in OGSP's claim and a fraudulent conspiracy. Justice Tan Siong Thye dismissed Comfort Management's application and a subsequent application for a stay of enforcement, finding no patent errors or evidence of fraud.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Comfort Management's application to set aside the adjudication determination and stay its enforcement were dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

OGSP Engineering sought to enforce an adjudication determination against Comfort Management under the SOPA, which Comfort challenged based on patent errors and alleged fraud.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
OGSP Engineering Pte LtdApplicant, RespondentCorporationApplication to set aside the adjudication determination dismissed, Application for stay of enforcement dismissedWon, WonNicholas Philip Lazarus, Elizabeth Toh Guek Li
Comfort Management Pte LtdRespondent, ApplicantCorporationApplication to set aside the adjudication determination dismissed, Application for stay of enforcement dismissedLost, LostPaul Wong Por Luk, Gan Yingtian Andrea, Wu Wenbang Francis

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tan Siong ThyeJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Nicholas Philip LazarusJusticius Law Corporation
Elizabeth Toh Guek LiJusticius Law Corporation
Paul Wong Por LukDentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Gan Yingtian AndreaDentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Wu Wenbang FrancisDentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP

4. Facts

  1. OGSP was hired by Comfort as a sub-contractor for a project.
  2. A dispute arose between OGSP and Comfort, leading OGSP to lodge Payment Claim No 12 against Comfort.
  3. Comfort did not file a payment response to Payment Claim No 12.
  4. OGSP obtained an adjudication determination in its favor.
  5. Comfort filed Summons No 2425 of 2017 to set aside the adjudication determination.
  6. Comfort alleged patent errors in OGSP's claims and a fraudulent conspiracy involving OGSP, SS Mechanical, and Pintu.
  7. Comfort applied for a stay of enforcement of the adjudication determination pending appeal.

5. Formal Citations

  1. OGSP Engineering Pte Ltd v Comfort Management Pte Ltd, Originating Summons No 478 of 2017 (Summons Nos 2425 and 3856 of 2017), [2017] SGHC 247

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Comfort engaged OGSP under a sub-contract.
Work done between October 2013 and October 2014.
Letter enclosing two appendices of drawings.
OGSP issued Payment Claim No 12 to Comfort.
Comfort's lawyers sent an email to OGSP regarding Payment Claim No 12.
OGSP served its Notice of Intention to Apply for Adjudication on Comfort.
OGSP served its adjudication application on the Singapore Mediation Centre.
Singapore Mediation Centre served a copy of the adjudication application on Comfort.
Comfort filed its adjudication response and its submissions with the Singapore Mediation Centre.
The adjudicator issued his adjudication determination.
OGSP filed Originating Summons No 478 of 2017.
Meeting between Comfort and Pintu Kumar Sarker.
Comfort filed Summons No 2425 of 2017 to set aside the adjudication determination.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Judgment date.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Patent Errors in Adjudication Claim
    • Outcome: The court found that the adjudicator did not fail to consider any alleged patent errors in the claim.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to consider contractual provisions
      • Insufficient supporting documents
  2. Fraudulent Conspiracy
    • Outcome: The court found no evidence of a fraudulent conspiracy between OGSP, SS Mechanical, and Pintu.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Inflated invoices
      • Frontloading of payments
  3. Stay of Enforcement Pending Appeal
    • Outcome: The court did not grant the application for a stay of enforcement pending appeal.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Risk of non-recovery of monies
      • Claimant's insolvency

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Enforcement of Adjudication Determination
  2. Setting Aside of Adjudication Determination
  3. Stay of Enforcement

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Construction Law
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
W Y Steel Construction Pte Ltd v Osko Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2013] 3 SLR 380SingaporeCited for the principle that an adjudicator must consider patent errors even in the absence of a payment response and that the court retains discretion to order a stay of enforcement of an adjudication determination where it is necessary to do so in order to secure the ends of justice.
Lee Wee Lick Terence (alias Li Weili Terence) v Chua Say Eng (formerly trading as Weng Fatt Construction Engineering) and another appealHigh CourtYes[2013] 1 SLR 401SingaporeCited for the principle that the court should not review the merits of an adjudicator's decision.
Aik Heng Contracts and Services Pte Ltd v Deshin Engineering & Construction Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2015] SGHC 293SingaporeCited for the definition of patent errors as those that are on the face of the material.
Kingsford Construction Pte Ltd v A Deli Construction Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2017] SGHC 174SingaporeCited for an illustration of a patent error and the plain meaning of 'patent' as something easily recognizable or obvious.
Mansource Interior Pte Ltd v Citiwall Safety Glass Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2014] 3 SLR 264SingaporeCited for the opinion that fraud is a valid ground for setting aside an adjudication determination.
Citiwall Safety Glass Pte Ltd v Mansource Interior Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2015] 5 SLR 482SingaporeCited to show that the finding on fraud in Mansource Interior Pte Ltd v Citiwall Safety Glass Pte Ltd was irrelevant for the purposes of the appeal.
W Y Steel Construction Pte Ltd v Osko Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2012] SGHC 194SingaporeCited for the conclusion that the adjudication determination was valid except for the possible exception of a clear case of fraud.
QC Communications NSW Pty Ltd v CivComm Pty LtdSupreme Court of New South WalesYes[2016] NSWSC 1095New South WalesCited for the interpretation of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Act 46 of 1999) and the conclusion that where an adjudication determination was obtained by fraud in which the adjudicator was not involved, the adjudication determination may be set aside by court proceedings akin to the situation where a judgment was obtained by fraud.
AES Façade Pte Ltd v WYSE Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2017] SGHC 171SingaporeCited for the concerns regarding a court that readily sets aside adjudication determinations and the overall purpose and objective of the SOPA.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed)Singapore
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Payment Claim
  • Adjudication Determination
  • Payment Response
  • Patent Error
  • Fraudulent Conspiracy
  • Stay of Enforcement
  • Frontloading
  • Sub-contract
  • Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act

15.2 Keywords

  • SOPA
  • adjudication
  • construction
  • payment claim
  • patent error
  • fraud
  • stay of enforcement

16. Subjects

  • Construction Law
  • Arbitration Law

17. Areas of Law

  • Building and Construction Law
  • Dispute Resolution
  • Statute and Regulations