Ang Cheng Guan Construction v Corporate Residence: Adjudication Review Scope under Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act
In Ang Cheng Guan Construction Pte Ltd v Corporate Residence Pte Ltd, the Singapore High Court addressed the scope of an adjudication review under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act. Ang Cheng Guan Construction sought to set aside an adjudication review determination. The High Court held that in an adjudication review, the entire adjudication determination is liable to be reviewed by the review adjudicator and set aside the Adjudication Review Determination.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Adjudication Review Determination set aside.
1.3 Case Type
Construction
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court case concerning the scope of adjudication review under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act. The court held that the entire adjudication determination is reviewable.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ang Cheng Guan Construction Pte Ltd | Applicant | Corporation | Adjudication Review Determination set aside | Won | |
| Corporate Residence Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Adjudication Review Determination set aside | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lee Seiu Kin | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- ACG sought to set aside the adjudication review determination dated 13 July 2016.
- CR engaged ACG to carry out works in a construction project.
- ACG took out adjudication application no SOP/AA 102 of 2016 in relation to a payment claim dated 22 February 2016.
- The adjudicator determined five issues in the adjudication.
- CR lodged the Adjudication Review Application pursuant to s 18(2) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act.
- CR paid the Adjudicated Amount to ACG prior to the lodgement.
- The RA formed the view that his jurisdiction was limited to the determination of the issues raised by CR in the Adjudication Review.
5. Formal Citations
- Ang Cheng Guan Construction Pte Ltd v Corporate Residence Pte Ltd, Originating Summons No 774 of 2016, [2017] SGHC 9
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Payment Claim dated | |
| ACG took out adjudication application no SOP/AA 102 of 2016 | |
| CR lodged the Adjudication Review Application | |
| Adjudication review determination dated | |
| Hearing submissions from counsel | |
| Hearing submissions from counsel | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Scope of Adjudication Review
- Outcome: The High Court held that in an adjudication review, the entire adjudication determination is liable to be reviewed by the review adjudicator.
- Category: Substantive
- Breach of Natural Justice
- Outcome: The court found that there was no breach of natural justice.
- Category: Procedural
- Judicial Review of Adjudication Determinations
- Outcome: The court affirmed the power of judicial review over statutory tribunals and adjudication determinations.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside of Adjudication Review Determination
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Construction Law
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEF Construction Pte Ltd v Skoy Connected Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 733 | Singapore | Cited to note that the adjudication review procedure is unique to Singapore. |
| CJP Builders Limited v William Verry Limited | English High Court | Yes | [2008] EWHC 2025 (TCC) | England and Wales | Cited regarding breach of natural justice where adjudicator took an erroneously restrictive view of his own jurisdiction. |
| Pilon Limited v Breyer Group Plc | English High Court | Yes | [2010] EWHC 837 (TCC) | England and Wales | Cited regarding adjudicator failing to address the question referred to him because he has taken an erroneously restrictive view of his jurisdiction. |
| Ballast Plc v The Burrell Company (Construction Management) Limited | Outer House of the Scottish Court of Session | Yes | [2001] BLR 529 | Scotland | Cited regarding breach of natural justice. |
| Thermal Energy Construction Limited v AE & E Lentjes UK Limited | English High Court | Yes | [2009] EWHC 408 (TCC) | England and Wales | Cited regarding breach of natural justice. |
| Reiby Street Apartments Pty Ltd v Winterton Constructions Pty Ltd & Anor | New South Wales Supreme Court | Yes | [2006] NSWSC 375 | Australia | Cited regarding adjudicator’s failure to consider certain material meant that he had failed to afford the respondent the measure of natural justice. |
| Sungdo Engineering & Construction (S) Pte Ltd v Italcor Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2010] 3 SLR 459 | Singapore | Cited for the High Court's power of judicial review over statutory tribunals. |
| 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 regarding the power of nomination under s 14(1) of the Act is predicated on the existence of a payment claim and the service thereof on the respondent. |
| Citiwall Safety Glass Pte Ltd v Mansource Interior Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 797 | Singapore | Cited regarding applications to set aside adjudication determinations and/or judgments under s 27 of the Act are akin to judicial review proceedings. |
| Associated Provincial Picture Houses, Limited v Wednesbury Corporation | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1948] 1 KB 223 | England and Wales | Cited regarding a wrong direction as to the law could affect the validity of a decision. |
| Padfield and Others v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Others | House of Lords | Yes | [1968] AC 997 | United Kingdom | Cited regarding the authority must not allow itself to be influenced by something extraneous and extrajudicial which ought not to have affected its decision. |
| Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission and Another | House of Lords | Yes | [1969] 2 AC 147 | United Kingdom | Cited regarding where a tribunal acts without jurisdiction that its decision is a nullity. |
| Re Fong Thin Choo | High Court | Yes | [1991] 1 SLR(R) 774 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the doctrine is well established in Singapore. |
| Attorney-General v Venice-Simplon Orient Express Inc Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1995] 1 SLR(R) 533 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the doctrine is well established in Singapore. |
| Tan Seet Eng v Attorney-General and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 779 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the doctrine is well established in Singapore. |
| Joseph Musico (aka Giuseppe Musico), Rosemary Musico, Luigi Genua and Rose Genua v Philip Davenport and Grosvenor Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd [Administrators appointed] | New South Wales Supreme Court | Yes | [2003] NSWSC 977 | Australia | Cited regarding where the determination of a dispute submitted to an adjudicator requires the adjudicator to consider issues of law, the adjudicator will not fall into jurisdictional error simply because he or she makes an error of law in the consideration and determination of those issues. |
| Craig v The State of South Australia | High Court of Australia | Yes | [1995] 184 CLR 163 | Australia | Cited regarding If such an administrative tribunal falls into an error of law which causes it to identify a wrong issue, to ask itself a wrong question, to ignore relevant material, to rely on irrelevant material or, at least in some circumstances, to make an erroneous finding or to reach a mistaken conclusion, and the tribunal's exercise or purported exercise of power is thereby affected, it exceeds its authority or powers. |
| Multiplex Constructions Pty Limited v Jan Luikens and Lahey Detailed Joinery Pty Ltd | New South Wales Supreme Court | Yes | [2003] NSWSC 1140 | Australia | Cited regarding relief will be granted where an adjudicator’s determination is the result of jurisdictional error. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 95 Rule 3 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B) | Singapore |
| Section 27 of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B) | Singapore |
| Sections 18 and 19 of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act | Singapore |
| Section 17(3)(a) to (h) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act | Singapore |
| Section 21(3) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Adjudication
- Adjudication Review
- Adjudication Determination
- Adjudication Review Determination
- Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act
- Payment Claim
- Payment Response
- Extension of Time
- Liquidated Damages
15.2 Keywords
- Adjudication Review
- Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act
- Construction Law
- Singapore
- High Court
- Adjudication Determination
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Adjudication | 95 |
| Construction Law | 90 |
| Dispute Resolution | 80 |
| Arbitration | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Construction Dispute
- Adjudication
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure