Bintai Kindenko Pte Ltd v Samsung C&T Corp: Setting Aside Adjudication Determination for Building and Construction Dispute
In Bintai Kindenko Pte Ltd v Samsung C&T Corp, the High Court of Singapore, on 19 December 2017, allowed Samsung C&T Corp's application to set aside an adjudication determination. The case concerned a dispute over payment for mechanical, electrical, and plumbing works at the Suntec City Convention Centre. The court, presided over by Judicial Commissioner Foo Chee Hock, found that the adjudicator had breached natural justice by failing to consider key issues of backcharges and variation works raised by Samsung, thus prejudicing their case. Bintai sought to enforce the adjudication determination, while Samsung sought to set it aside.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Samsung's application to set aside the Adjudication Determination was allowed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court set aside an adjudication determination in a building and construction dispute between Bintai Kindenko and Samsung C&T, citing a breach of natural justice.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bintai Kindenko Pte Ltd | Applicant, Respondent | Corporation | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Samsung C&T Corp | Respondent, Applicant | Corporation | Application Allowed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Foo Chee Hock | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Bintai claimed $13,479,366.43 from Samsung via Payment Claim No 59.
- Samsung responded with Payment Response No 59, stating a negative amount of $2,190,963.62 due from Bintai.
- Bintai claimed $2,146,250 in its adjudication application, representing the first half of retention monies.
- The adjudicator determined that Samsung was to pay Bintai $2,146,250.
- The adjudicator did not deal with the issues of backcharges and variation works.
- Samsung applied to set aside the adjudication determination based on the adjudicator's failure to consider backcharges and variation works.
5. Formal Citations
- Bintai Kindenko Pte Ltd v Samsung C&T Corp, Originating Summons No 975 of 2017(Summons No 4276 of 2017), [2017] SGHC 321
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Bintai submitted Payment Claim No 59, claiming for $13,479,366.43 against Samsung. | |
| Bintai served its notice of intention to apply for adjudication and lodged the adjudication application. | |
| Oral conference held. | |
| Adjudication Determination was rendered. | |
| Hearing held. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Natural Justice
- Outcome: The court found that the adjudicator breached natural justice by failing to consider the issues of backcharges and variation works.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to consider essential issues
- Failure to address important submissions
- Related Cases:
- [2015] 3 SLR 488
- [2010] SGHC 80
8. Remedies Sought
- Enforcement of Adjudication Determination
- Setting Aside Adjudication Determination
9. Cause of Actions
- Enforcement of Adjudication Determination
- Setting Aside Adjudication Determination
10. Practice Areas
- Construction Law
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Metropole Pte Ltd v Designshop Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2017] 4 SLR 277 | Singapore | Cited regarding the need for an adjudicator to expressly set out all the findings that he had made. |
| TMM Division Maritima SA de CV v Pacific Richfield Marine Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 972 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an issue would be implicitly resolved if its outcome flowed from the conclusion of a specific logically prior issue. |
| SEF Construction Pte Ltd v Skoy Connected Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 733 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there should not be a review of the merits of the adjudicator’s determination. |
| Lee Wee Lick Terence (alias Li Weili Terence) v Chua Say Eng (formerly trading as Weng Fatt Construction Engineering) and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 401 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there should not be a review of the merits of the adjudicator’s determination. |
| Brookhollow Pty Ltd v R&R Consultants Pty Ltd & Anor | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | [2006] NSWSC 1 | Australia | Cited regarding the failure by an adjudicator to mention in the reasons for determination a critical issue. |
| AKN and another v ALC and others and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 3 SLR 488 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the failure to consider an “important issue that has been pleaded” was a breach of natural justice. |
| Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2010] SGHC 80 | Singapore | Cited as a useful demonstration of a situation where the arbitrator failed to even consider an argument. |
| L W Infrastructure Pte Ltd v Lim Chin San Contractors Pte Ltd and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 125 | Singapore | Cited for the test of materiality was whether the breach “could reasonably have made a difference … rather than whether it would necessarily have done so”. |
| Aik Heng Contracts and Services Pte Ltd v Deshin Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2015] SGHC 293 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that a material breach of natural justice required something which otherwise “might have had some prospect of changing the adjudicator’s mind on the point”. |
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 |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Adjudication Determination
- Payment Claim
- Payment Response
- Retention Monies
- Backcharges
- Variation Works
- Breach of Natural Justice
15.2 Keywords
- Adjudication
- Construction
- Payment
- Dispute
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Adjudication | 90 |
| Construction Law | 90 |
| Setting aside adjudication determination | 90 |
| Arbitration | 50 |
| Civil Procedure | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Building and Construction Law
- Adjudication
- Civil Procedure