Sunray Woodcraft v Like Building Materials: Setting Aside Adjudication Determination for Premature Application

In Sunray Woodcraft Construction Pte Ltd v Like Building Materials (S) Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore heard an application to set aside an adjudication determination under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act. The court, presided over by Ang Cheng Hock JC, allowed the application, finding that the adjudication application was premature because the respondent, Like Building Materials, filed it before the applicant, Sunray Woodcraft, was required to provide a payment response. The court held that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction, rendering the determination null and void.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Applicant's application allowed and the adjudicator's determination set aside.

1.3 Case Type

Building and Construction Law

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court set aside an adjudication determination, finding the application was premature and the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction under the SOP Act.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Sunray Woodcraft Construction Pte LtdApplicantCorporationApplication AllowedWon
Like Building Materials (S) Private LtdRespondentCorporationAdjudication Determination Set AsideLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Ang Cheng HockJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Valliappan SubramaniamUnited Legal Alliance LLC
Lew Chen ChenChambers Law LLP

4. Facts

  1. Applicant and Respondent are construction companies.
  2. Applicant was a sub-contractor for a project named “Proposed Marina South Mixed Development”.
  3. Applicant awarded Respondent the sub-contract works for the design, supply and installation of metal ceiling.
  4. Respondent served Payment Claim No. 27 for S$680,441.12 on the Applicant.
  5. Respondent served intention to apply for adjudication and filed adjudication application.
  6. Applicant served Payment Response No. 17 on the Respondent.
  7. Adjudicator allowed the amount claimed in full.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Sunray Woodcraft Construction Pte Ltd v Like Building Materials (S) Pte Ltd, Originating Summons No 555 of 2018, [2018] SGHC 200

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Letter of Award dated
Letter of Award executed and issued
Respondent served Payment Claim No. 27 on the Applicant
Respondent served intention to apply for adjudication and filed adjudication application
Adjudication application served on the Applicant and SMC appointed the adjudicator
Applicant served Payment Response No. 17 on the Respondent
Applicant lodged adjudication response with the SMC
Adjudication conference took place
Adjudication determination was issued
Hearing of the application to set aside the adjudication determination
Hearing of the application to set aside the adjudication determination
Detailed grounds of decision set out

7. Legal Issues

  1. Jurisdiction of Adjudicator
    • Outcome: The court held that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction because the adjudication application was filed prematurely, before the entitlement to make such an application arose.
    • Category: Jurisdictional
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Premature Adjudication Application
      • Breach of Mandatory Condition under the Act
  2. Interpretation of Contractual Terms
    • Outcome: The court found that the Technical Bid Evaluation (TBE) formed part of the contract and that the term 'payment certificate' in the TBE was intended to mean 'payment response'.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Entire Agreement Clause
      • Intention of Parties
      • Payment Certificate vs Payment Response

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Setting Aside of Adjudication Determination

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Construction Law
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Grouteam Pte Ltd v UES Holdings Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2016] 5 SLR 1011SingaporeCited for the principle that breach of a mandatory provision of the Act renders an adjudication determination invalid and that a party can waive a breach of a mandatory provision of the Act.
Audi Construction Pte Ltd v Kian Hiap Construction Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2018] 1 SLR 317SingaporeCited for the principle that an adjudicator has the power to decide matters which go towards his substantive jurisdiction, including whether mandatory provisions have been complied with.
Newcon Builders Pte Ltd v Sino New Steel Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2015] SGHC 226SingaporeCited for the principle that an adjudication application made before the entitlement to do so arises is not a valid adjudication application and that s 13(3)(a) read with s 12(2) creates a mandatory condition.
Linkforce Pte Ltd v Kajima Overseas Asia Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2017] SGHC 46SingaporeCited as taking the same approach as Newcon Builders regarding premature adjudication applications.
Encus International Pte Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) v Tenacious Investment Pte Ltd and othersHigh CourtNo[2016] 2 SLR 1178SingaporeCited regarding the effect of an entire agreement clause and whether it supersedes prior agreements. Distinguished on the facts.
Lucky Realty Co Pte Ltd v HSBC Trustee (Singapore) LtdN/AYes[2016] 1 SLR 1069SingaporeCited for the principle that the court looks to the text that the parties have used when construing contracts.
Lee Chee Wei v Tan Hor Peow Victor and others and another appealN/AYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 537SingaporeCited for principles relating to entire agreement clauses and the admissibility of context in contractual interpretation.
Zurich Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd v B-Gold Interior Design & Construction Pte LtdN/AYes[2008] 3 SLR(R) 1029SingaporeCited for the principle that it is permissible to have regard to the relevant context as long as the relevant contextual points are clear, obvious and known to both parties.
Sembcorp Marine Ltd v PPL Holdings Pte LtdN/AYes[2013] 4 SLR 193SingaporeCited for the principle that the court should ascertain the parties’ objective intentions by interpreting the expressions used by them in their proper context.
Tienrui Design & Construction Pte Ltd v G & Y Trading and Manufacturing Pte LtdN/ANo[2015] 5 SLR 852SingaporeCited for the principle that a claimant can make separate claims under the contract and under the Act, and a respondent can provide separate responses or a response with both contractual and statutory force. Distinguished on the facts.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Chapter 30B, 2006 Rev Ed)Singapore
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Chapter 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) s 10Singapore
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Chapter 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) s 11Singapore
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Chapter 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) s 12Singapore
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Chapter 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) s 13Singapore
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Chapter 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) s 15Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Adjudication Determination
  • Payment Claim
  • Payment Response
  • Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act
  • Technical Bid Evaluation
  • Letter of Award
  • Jurisdiction
  • Premature Application
  • Mandatory Condition

15.2 Keywords

  • Adjudication
  • Construction
  • Security of Payment Act
  • Singapore
  • Building
  • Contract

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Adjudication95
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act95
Contractual terms90
Contract Law80
Construction Law75
Dispute Resolution60
Arbitration50
Breach of Contract40

16. Subjects

  • Construction Dispute
  • Adjudication
  • Contract Law