CMC Ravenna v CGW Construction: Setting Aside Adjudication Review Determination under SOPA

In CMC Ravenna Singapore Branch v CGW Construction & Engineering (S) Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore addressed CGW's application to set aside an adjudication review determination and a related court order obtained by CMC Ravenna concerning a payment dispute arising from a construction project. The court, presided over by Justice Chan Seng Onn, dismissed CGW's application, upholding the review determination and the order, finding no grounds for setting them aside under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Setting Aside Application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Building and Construction Law

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court considered setting aside an adjudication review determination concerning a construction payment dispute under the SOPA.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
CMC Ravenna Singapore BranchApplicantCorporationApplication to set aside Review Determination dismissedLost
CGW Construction & Engineering (S) Pte LtdRespondentCorporationOrder of Court not set asideWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chan Seng OnnJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Lee Peng Khoon EdwinEldan Law LLP
Fong Lee Cheng JenniferEldan Law LLP
Chan Kah Keen MelvinTSMP Law Corporation
Yvonne Mak Hui-LinTSMP Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. CMC Ravenna engaged CGW as a sub-contractor for the Tampines West Station project.
  2. A letter of award dated 15 May 2015 was issued to CGW for works valued at S$1,008,666.30.
  3. An addendum dated 2 October 2015 increased CGW’s scope of works, valuing them at S$944,404.80.
  4. CGW served Progress Claim 16 on CMC Ravenna for S$410,325.16.
  5. CMC Ravenna responded with Interim Payment Certificate No 16, stating CGW owed them S$735,378.93.
  6. CGW commenced Adjudication Application No 469 of 2016.
  7. The Adjudicator determined CMC Ravenna was to pay CGW S$340,515.61.
  8. CMC Ravenna commenced the Review Application.

5. Formal Citations

  1. CMC Ravenna Singapore Branch v CGW Construction & Engineering (S) Pte Ltd, Originating Summons No 466 of 2017 (Summons No 2219 of 2017), [2017] SGHC 263

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Letter of Award issued
Addendum to the Letter of Award issued
CGW served Progress Claim 16 on CMC Ravenna
CMC Ravenna served Interim Payment Certificate (Payment Response) No 16 on CGW
CGW commenced Adjudication Application No 469 of 2016
Ms Khoo Jing Ling appointed as the adjudicator
CMC Ravenna lodged its adjudication response with the SMC
The Adjudicator issued her adjudication determination
A revised version of the adjudication determination was issued
CMC Ravenna paid the Adjudicated Amount to CGW
CMC Ravenna lodged the Review Application with the SMC
Mr Chia Chor Leong was appointed as the review adjudicator
The Review Adjudicator convened a preliminary conference
The Review Adjudicator issued the Review Determination
CMC Ravenna commenced OS 466
CMC Ravenna obtained the Order of Court
The Order of Court was served on CGW
CGW filed the Setting Aside Application
Judgment reserved
Judgment

7. Legal Issues

  1. Jurisdiction of Review Adjudicator
    • Outcome: The court held that the single review adjudicator had jurisdiction.
    • Category: Jurisdictional
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Appointment of single vs. panel of three review adjudicators
  2. Misdirection on Point of Law
    • Outcome: The court held that it should not evaluate whether a review adjudicator misdirected himself on a point of law.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to consider relevant matters
      • Taking into account irrelevant considerations

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Setting aside of adjudication review determination
  2. Setting aside of order of court

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Construction Law
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Ang Cheng Guan Construction Pte Ltd v Corporate Residence Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2017] 3 SLR 988SingaporeCited for principles regarding setting aside adjudication review determinations.
Mataban Development Pte Ltd v Black Knight Warrior Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2017] SGHCR 12SingaporeCited as a decision involving the setting aside of an adjudication review determination.
SEF Construction Pte Ltd v Skoy Connected Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2010] 1 SLR 733SingaporeCited for the proposition that the adjudication review procedure under the SOPA has no statutory analogue in other jurisdictions.
Lee Wee Lick Terence (alias Li Weili Terence) v Chua Say Eng (formerly trading as Weng Fatt Construction Engineering) and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2013] 1 SLR 401SingaporeCited for the fundamental rule that the court should not review the merits of the adjudicator’s decision.
Citiwall Safety Glass Pte Ltd v Mansource Interior Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2015] 1 SLR 797SingaporeCited for the principle that a court's role in setting aside an adjudication determination is limited to exercising a supervisory function.
Vinod Kumar Ramgopal Didwania v Hauslab Design & Build Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2017] 1 SLR 890SingaporeCited for the principle of temporary finality in the adjudication process.
W Y Steel Construction Pte Ltd v Osko Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2013] 3 SLR 380SingaporeCited for the principle of temporary finality in the adjudication process.
UES Holdings Pte Ltd v KH Foges Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2017] SGHC 114SingaporeCited for the principles of natural justice in adjudication.
Metropole Pte Ltd v Designshop Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2017] SGHC 45SingaporeCited for the principles of natural justice in adjudication.
Grouteam Pte Ltd v UES Holdings Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2016] 5 SLR 1011SingaporeCited for the characterization of errors that go towards an adjudicator’s jurisdiction.
Chip Hup Hup Kee Construction Pte Ltd v Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co LtdHigh CourtYes[2010] 1 SLR 658SingaporeDiscussed in relation to the essential conditions approach for setting aside adjudication determinations.
AM Associates (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Laguna National Golf and Country Club LtdHigh CourtYes[2009] SGHC 260SingaporeDiscussed in relation to the essential conditions approach for setting aside adjudication determinations.
Sungdo Engineering & Construction (S) Pte Ltd v Italcor Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2010] 3 SLR 459SingaporeDiscussed in relation to the requirements for a payment claim.
Associated Provincial Picture Houses, Limited v Wednesbury CorporationEngland and Wales High Court (Divisional Court)Yes[1948] 1 KB 223England and WalesCited for the definition of unreasonableness.
Brodyn Pty Ltd t/as Time Cost and Quality v Davenport and AnotherNew South Wales Court of AppealYes[2004] NSWCA 394AustraliaDiscussed in relation to the essential conditions approach for setting aside adjudication determinations.
Chase Oyster Bar Pty Ltd and Others v Hamo Industries Pty Ltd and AnotherNew South Wales Court of AppealYes[2010] NSWCA 190AustraliaCited for the legislative purpose test for setting aside adjudication determinations.
Kingsford Construction Pte Ltd v A Deli Construction Pte Ltd and another matterHigh CourtYes[2017] SGHC 174SingaporeCited for the definition of patent error.
OGSP Engineering Pte Ltd v Comfort Management Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2017] SGHC 247SingaporeCited for the definition of patent error.
Mansource Interior Pte Ltd v Citiwall Safety Glass Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2014] 3 SLR 264SingaporeMentioned as a case where fraud was raised as a possible ground for setting aside an adjudication determination.
W Y Steel Construction Pte Ltd v Osko Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2012] SGHC 194SingaporeMentioned as a case where fraud was raised as a possible ground for setting aside an adjudication determination.
Lim Chin San Contractors Pte Ltd v LW Infrastructure Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2011] 4 SLR 455SingaporeCited for the principle that contractual interpretation is a question of law.
Musico and Others v Davenport and AnotherNew South Wales Supreme CourtYes[2003] NSWSC 977AustraliaDiscussed in relation to errors of law.
Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd v Luikens and AnotherNew South Wales Supreme CourtYes[2003] NSWSC 1140AustraliaDiscussed in relation to errors of law.
Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation CommissionHouse of LordsYes[1969] 2 AC 14United KingdomDiscussed in relation to errors of law.
Craig v The State of South AustraliaHigh Court of AustraliaYes(1995) 184 CLR 163AustraliaDiscussed in relation to errors of law.
W Y Steel Construction Pte Ltd v Tycoon Construction Pte Ltd (in liquidation)High CourtYes[2016] SGHC 80SingaporeMentioned as a case where the payment response amount was negative.
Quanta Industries Pte Ltd v Strategic Construction Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2015] 2 SLR 70SingaporeMentioned as a case where the payment response amount was negative.
Tienrui Design & Construction Pte Ltd v G & Y Trading and Manufacturing Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2015] 5 SLR 852SingaporeMentioned as a case where the payment response amount was negative.
JRP & Associates Pte Ltd v Kindly Construction & Services Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2015] 3 SLR 575SingaporeMentioned as a case where the payment response amount was negative.
Newcon Builders Pte Ltd v Sino New Steel Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2015] SGHC 226SingaporeMentioned as a case where the payment response amount was negative.

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 s 18Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Adjudication
  • Adjudication Review
  • Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act
  • Payment Claim
  • Payment Response
  • Liquidated Damages
  • Relevant Response Amount

15.2 Keywords

  • Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act
  • SOPA
  • Adjudication Review
  • Setting Aside
  • Construction Law
  • Payment Claim
  • Payment Response

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act95
Construction Law90
Adjudication70
Statutory Interpretation40
Administrative Law30
Civil Procedure20

16. Subjects

  • Construction Dispute
  • Adjudication
  • Contract Law