Mataban Development v Black Knight Warrior: Setting Aside Adjudication Determination under SOPA

In the High Court of Singapore, Mataban Development Pte Ltd sued Black Knight Warrior Pte Ltd. Black Knight Warrior applied to set aside an adjudication determination in favor of Mataban Development regarding a construction dispute at Black Knight Warrior's restaurant. The court dismissed the application, holding that it should not review the merits of the adjudicator's decision on the validity of the payment response.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

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 dismissed Black Knight Warrior's application to set aside an adjudication determination in favor of Mataban Development, concerning a construction dispute.

1.7 Decision Date

22 August 2017

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Mataban Development Pte Ltd	Plaintiff, Respondent	Corporation	Won	Won	Charlene Cheam of Straits Law Practice LLC Joseph Liow Wang Wu of Straits Law Practice LLC
Black Knight Warrior Pte Ltd	Defendant, Applicant	Corporation	Application Dismissed	Lost	Luke Chong Yew Meng of Elitaire Law LLP Ng Ser Chiang of Elitaire Law LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Colin Seow	Assistant Registrar	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Charlene Cheam	Straits Law Practice LLC
Joseph Liow Wang Wu	Straits Law Practice LLC
Luke Chong Yew Meng	Elitaire Law LLP
Ng Ser Chiang	Elitaire Law LLP

4. Facts

Black Knight Warrior sought to set aside an order and adjudication determination.
The adjudicator determined Black Knight Warrior should pay Mataban Development $91,955.46 for unpaid work.
A key issue was the validity of Black Knight Warrior's payment response.
The adjudicator disregarded Black Knight Warrior's adjudication response, deeming the payment response invalid.
Black Knight Warrior argued the adjudicator's misdirection denied their right to be heard.
Mataban Development argued the court shouldn't review the adjudicator's decision on the payment response validity.
The court considered the High Court's comments in Admin Construction Pte Ltd regarding challenges to adjudication determinations.

5. Formal Citations

Mataban Development Pte Ltd v Black Knight Warrior Pte Ltd, Originating Summons No 448 of 2017 (Summons No 2236 of 2017), [2017] SGHCR 12

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2017-03-21	Adjudication Determination issued
2017-04-24	Mataban Development filed Originating Summons No 448 of 2017
2017-04-26	Leave to enforce the Adjudication Determination was granted
2017-04-27	Assistant Registrar’s order was extracted by the Plaintiff vide HC/ORC 2675/2017
2017-05-16	Black Knight Warrior filed the Application in court
2017-07-11	Hearing before Colin Seow AR
2017-08-23	Judgment Reserved

7. Legal Issues

Setting Aside of Adjudication Determination
- Outcome: The court held that it should not review the merits of the adjudicator's decision relating to the validity of the Payment Response.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Breach of rules of natural justice
  - Jurisdictional error
- Related Cases:
  - [2010] 1 SLR 733
  - [2017] 3 SLR 988
  - [2013] 1 SLR 401
Validity of Payment Response
- Outcome: The court did not make a specific finding but repeated its view that there was no basis upon which the Defendant could launch a challenge premised either on a “jurisdictional error” or a breach of the rules of natural justice.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Compliance with section 11(3) of the SOPA
  - Compliance with regulation 6(1) of the SOPR

8. Remedies Sought

Setting aside of the Order of Court dated 26 April 2017
Setting aside of the Adjudication Determination dated 21 March 2017
Costs of the Application

9. Cause of Actions

Setting Aside of Adjudication Determination

10. Practice Areas

Construction Law
Arbitration

11. Industries

Construction
Hospitality

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Newcon Builders Pte Ltd v Sino New Steel Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2015] SGHCR 13	Singapore	Cited as an example of a case where applications under section 27 of SOPA were heard before an Assistant Registrar.
Associate Dynamic Builder Pte Ltd v Tactic Foundation Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2013] SGHCR 16	Singapore	Cited as an example of a case where applications under section 27 of SOPA were heard before an Assistant Registrar.
Admin Construction Pte Ltd v Vivaldi (S) Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2013] 3 SLR 609	Singapore	Cited for comments on whether challenges to adjudication determinations should be heard before assistant registrars.
SEF Construction Pte Ltd v Skoy Connected Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2010] 1 SLR 733	Singapore	Cited for the proposition that the court, in hearing a setting aside application under section 27(5) of the SOPA, has no role to play in reviewing the merits of an adjudicator’s findings in his adjudication determination.
Brodyn Pty Ltd v Davenport	New South Wales Court of Appeal	Yes	[2004] NSWCA 394	Australia	Cited for the opinion that whether a document purporting to be a payment claim is actually a payment claim is an issue for the adjudicator and not the court.
Ang Cheng Guan Construction Pte Ltd v Corporate Residence Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2017] 3 SLR 988	Singapore	Cited for the analysis of the merits of the review adjudicator’s decision in the adjudication review.
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 endorsing the approach in SEF Construction relating to the role of the court in a setting aside application.
Sungdo Engineering & Construction (S) Pte Ltd v Italcor Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2010] 3 SLR 459	Singapore	Cited as an example of a case embracing a more expansive role of the court in the scheme of the SOPA.
Citiwall Safety Glass Pte Ltd v Mansource Interior Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] 1 SLR 797	Singapore	Cited for reaffirming earlier holdings in Lee Wee Lick Terence.
W Y Steel Construction Pte Ltd v Osko Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2013] 3 SLR 380	Singapore	Cited for the statement that the adjudication regime under the SOPA seeks to achieve temporary finality.
Craig v South Australia	High Court of Australia	Yes	[1995] HCA 58	Australia	Cited for the distinction between jurisdictional error and a mere error in the exercise of jurisdiction.
Chase Oyster Bar v Hamo Industries	New South Wales Court of Appeal	Yes	[2010] NSWCA 190	Australia	Cited for the distinction between acts done in breach of an essential preliminary to the adjudicator’s exercise of a statutory power or authority and acts done in breach of a procedural condition for the adjudicator’s exercise of a statutory power or authority.
Chip Hup Hup Kee Construction Pte Ltd v Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2010] 1 SLR 658	Singapore	Cited as clarified in Lee Wee Lick Terence regarding an adjudicator making an adjudication determination in favour of a claimant taking into account a formally defective payment claim.
Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd v Luikens and Anor	New South Wales Supreme Court	Yes	[2003] NSWSC 1140	Australia	Cited for issues raised as to whether an adjudication determination should be quashed on the basis of an error of law that appears on the face of the record of the proceedings.
Hua Rong Engineering Pte Ltd v Civil Tech Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2017] SGHC 179	Singapore	Cited for the adjudicator’s jurisdiction in the sense of his competence to adjudicate on certain issues raised in an adjudication proceedings.

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
Section 11(3) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Section 15(3) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Section 27 of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act	Singapore
Section 14(1) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act	Singapore
Section 12(2) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act	Singapore
Section 16(7) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Adjudication Determination
Payment Response
Adjudication Application
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act
Rules of Natural Justice
Jurisdictional Error
Adjudication Response
Payment Claim
SOPA
SOPR

15.2 Keywords

SOPA
Adjudication
Construction
Payment
Dispute
Setting Aside
Payment Response
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Adjudication	80
Construction Law	75
Alternative Dispute Resolution	65
Arbitration	50

16. Subjects

Construction Dispute
Adjudication
Setting Aside Application
Payment Claim
Payment Response