Wei Siang v Euro Assets: Building Renovation, Conservation Guidelines & Negligence
In Wei Siang Design Construction Pte Ltd v Euro Assets Holding (S) Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore addressed claims and counterclaims arising from the renovation of a conserved shophouse. Euro Assets Holding (S) Pte Ltd, the owner, initiated a renovation project but the works deviated from the Urban Redevelopment Authority’s (URA) Conservation Guidelines. Wei Siang Design Construction Pte Ltd, the contractor, sued the owner for unpaid sums. The owner counterclaimed against the contractor, architect Chia Soo Ong Hector, and engineer Lee Ong Fee for losses due to the deviations. The court found the contractor, architect, and engineer liable to the owner for deviations to the second and third storey rear slabs, the rear roof slab, and the rear external staircase. The contractor and architect were liable for the rear boundary wall deviation. The court allowed the contractor’s claim for variation works related to an additional rainwater drop pipe, dismissing the remaining claims. The quantum of damages will be assessed separately.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff on claim in respect of variation works done to install an additional rainwater drop pipe. All of the contractor’s remaining claims against the owner are dismissed. The contractor, the architect, and the engineer are all liable to the owner in respect of the deviations to: (i) the second and third storey rear slabs; (ii) the rear roof slab; and (iii) the rear external staircase; (b) The contractor and the architect, but not the engineer, are liable to the owner for the deviation at the rear boundary wall. The quantum of damages payable to the owner by these three parties will be assessed separately. As against the owner, however, the three parties are jointly and severally liable for the whole of the owner’s loss.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Wei Siang Design Construction Pte Ltd v Euro Assets Holding (S) Pte Ltd concerns a renovation that deviated from conservation guidelines.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wei Siang Design Construction Pte Ltd | Plaintiff, Defendant | Corporation | Claim Allowed in Part | Partial | |
| Euro Assets Holding (S) Pte Ltd (formerly known as Euro Search International Pte Ltd) | Defendant, Plaintiff | Corporation | Counterclaim Allowed in Part | Partial | |
| Chia Soo Ong Hector | Defendant | Individual | Counterclaim Allowed in Part | Partial | |
| Lee Ong Fee @ Lee Tat Sang trading as T S Lee Civil Structural Associates | Defendant | Individual | Counterclaim Allowed in Part | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Vinodh Coomaraswamy | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Euro Assets Holding (S) Pte Ltd owned a conservation shophouse at 25 Boon Tat Street, Singapore.
- The owner initiated a renovation project to make additions and alterations to the shophouse.
- Wei Siang Design Construction Pte Ltd was engaged as the main contractor for the project.
- Chia Soo Ong Hector was the principal architect and Qualified Person (Architectural) for the project.
- Lee Ong Fee was the civil and structural engineer and Qualified Person (Structural) for the project.
- The project breached the URA’s Conservation Guidelines in the manner in which four features of the shophouse were treated.
- The URA refused to give its approval to BCA issuing a TOP for the shophouse.
5. Formal Citations
- Wei Siang Design Construction Pte Ltd v Euro Assets Holding (S) Pte Ltd, Suit No 993 of 2012, [2018] SGHC 182
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Owner entered into contract with Nota Group Pte Ltd. | |
| NDAE engaged the engineer to provide engineering services for the project. | |
| URA granted written permission for the owner’s works to proceed. | |
| Building & Construction Authority approved structural plans prepared by the engineer. | |
| Owner engaged the contractor to be the main contractor for the project. | |
| Rear slabs were demolished. | |
| Contractor sent email to Lee Boon Pin from NGPL regarding doing away with the 510mm drop at rear portion of roof terrace. | |
| Contractual completion date for the project. | |
| Architect applied to the URA for written permission to amend the original drawings. | |
| URA issued a written direction objecting to the deviations at the rear roof slab and at the rear external staircase. | |
| Architect submitted a similar amendment application to the URA. | |
| Architect submitted a similar amendment application to the URA. | |
| Owner changed architects. | |
| New architect, Philip Yong, submitted another amendment application to the URA. | |
| Philip Yong submitted a fresh application to the URA seeking written permission to rectify the deviations. | |
| URA approved Philip Yong’s application and granted written permission for the rectification works to be carried out. | |
| Rectification works were duly carried out and completed. | |
| Project received its Certificate of Statutory Completion and the owner went into occupation. | |
| Trial began. | |
| Trial concluded. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found the contractor in breach of contract for failing to comply with the drawings and failing to clarify discrepancies.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to comply with drawings
- Failure to clarify discrepancies in drawings
- Negligence
- Outcome: The court found the architect and engineer negligent for drawings and supervision failures.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Drawings failure
- Supervision failure
- Duty of Care
- Outcome: The court held that the architect and engineer owed a duty of care to the owner.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Negligence
10. Practice Areas
- Construction Law
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100 | Singapore | Cited as setting out the universal test for determining whether a duty of care exists. |
| Sunny Metal & Engineering Pte Ltd v Ng Khim Ming Eric | High Court | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 853 | Singapore | Cited for the view that the requirement of factual foreseeability will almost always be satisfied. |
| Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman | High Court of Australia | Yes | (1985) 60 ALR 1 | Australia | Cited for the indicia of proximity to be considered in the first stage of the Spandeck test. |
| RSP Architects Planners & Engineers (formerly known as Raglan Squire & Partners FE) v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1075 and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR(R) 134 | Singapore | Cited as authority which considered the issue of an architect’s duty of care. |
| Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [1964] AC 465 | United Kingdom | Cited for observations of Lord Devlin which were adopted by the Court of Appeal in Animal Concerns Research & Education Society v Tan Boon Kwee. |
| Animal Concerns Research & Education Society v Tan Boon Kwee | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 146 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that contractual arrangements of the parties, although an important consideration to be taken into account when deciding whether there is proximity, does not automatically exclude a duty of care. |
| Pacific Associates Inc v Baxter | Queen's Bench Division | Yes | [1990] 1 QB 993 | United Kingdom | Cited as indicating that where the owner has his rights protected under a bargained-for contractual framework, the courts should not superimpose a duty of care in tort which cuts across that framework. |
| Sim & Associates v Tan Alfred | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 1 SLR(R) 146 | Singapore | Cited for the decision that an architect in a building contract has a duty to supervise the building works to ensure that they are being carried out in conformity with the contractual specifications. |
| Tan Juay Pah v Kimly Construction Pte Ltd and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 549 | Singapore | Cited for the submission that participants in the construction industry are in the business of managing commercial risk through contracts and the imposition of a duty of care in tort risks undermining the private, consensual and bargained-for allocation of risk, and therefore the framework of distributive justice. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Code of Practice for Construction Computer Aided Design |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Building Control Act (Cap 29, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Planning Act (Cap 232, 1998 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Conservation Guidelines
- Qualified Person
- Written Permission
- Temporary Occupation Permit
- Drawings Duty
- Supervision Duty
- H Structure
- Rear Boundary Wall
- Rear Roof Slab
- Second and Third Storey Slabs
15.2 Keywords
- Building Renovation
- Conservation Guidelines
- Negligence
- Architect
- Engineer
- Contractor
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Building and Construction Law
- Architects, Engineers and Surveyors
- Construction Torts
- Economic Loss
- Conservation Areas