Yau Lee Construction v Far East Square: SOPA Dispute over Payment Claim Validity and Adjudicator's Jurisdiction
In Yau Lee Construction (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Far East Square Pte Ltd, the Singapore High Court addressed a dispute arising from the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (SOPA). Yau Lee Construction, the contractor, sought payment from Far East Square, the developer, for a construction project. The developer applied to set aside an adjudication determination in favor of the contractor, arguing the payment claim was invalid, the adjudication application was untimely, and the adjudicator exceeded jurisdiction. Justice Lee Seiu Kin dismissed the developer's application, finding they were estopped from raising objections due to failing to file a payment response.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Application to set aside the adjudication determination and the order of court enforcing the adjudication determination was dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Building and Construction Law
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court case involving Yau Lee Construction and Far East Square. The dispute centered on the validity of a payment claim and the adjudicator's jurisdiction.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yau Lee Construction (Singapore) Pte Ltd | Applicant | Corporation | Application Allowed | Won | Raymond Chan, Oung Hui Wen Karen |
| Far East Square Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Application Dismissed | Lost | Chuah Chee Kian Christopher, Lee Hwai Bin, Muhammad Asfian Bin Mohaimi, Valerie Koh, Deborah Hoe |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lee Seiu Kin | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Raymond Chan | Chan Neo LLP |
| Oung Hui Wen Karen | Chan Neo LLP |
| Chuah Chee Kian Christopher | WongPartnership LLP |
| Lee Hwai Bin | WongPartnership LLP |
| Muhammad Asfian Bin Mohaimi | WongPartnership LLP |
| Valerie Koh | WongPartnership LLP |
| Deborah Hoe | WongPartnership LLP |
4. Facts
- Far East Square Pte Ltd was the developer for a building and construction project.
- Yau Lee Construction (Singapore) Pte Ltd was the main contractor for the project.
- The developer engaged the contractor via a Letter of Award dated 29 November 2010 for $82.8m.
- The contractor submitted 18 payment claims after the expiry of the maintenance period.
- The architect issued a final certificate certifying the final balance payable.
- The contractor submitted payment claim number 75 (PC 75), which was a repeat of PC 73.
- The developer did not issue a payment response to PC 75.
5. Formal Citations
- Yau Lee Construction (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Far East Square Pte Ltd, Originating Summons No 258 of 2018, [2018] SGHC 261
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Letter of Award (LOA) signed | |
| Phase one of the works completed | |
| Formal contractual documents signed | |
| Phase two of the works completed | |
| Maintenance period of the works commenced | |
| Maintenance period of the works ended | |
| Contractor submitted payment claim number 55 | |
| Contractor submitted payment claim number 72 | |
| Contractor submitted payment claim number 73 (PC 73) | |
| Architect issued a final certificate | |
| Developer issued a payment response entitled 'Payment Response Reference Number 73 (Final)' | |
| Contractor submitted payment claim number 74 (PC 74) | |
| Architect informed the contractor that he had proceeded to issue the final certificate | |
| Contractor submitted payment claim number 75 (PC 75) | |
| Architect issued another letter repeating that no further progress payments shall be issued | |
| Contractor lodged an adjudication application in relation to PC 75 | |
| Adjudicator issued the adjudication determination | |
| Order of court for the enforcement of the adjudication determination | |
| Hearing before Lee Seiu Kin J | |
| Judgment by Lee Seiu Kin J |
7. Legal Issues
- Validity of Payment Claim
- Outcome: The court found that the developer was estopped from arguing the invalidity of the payment claim and that the payment claim was valid.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Submission of payment claim after final certificate
- Waiver of contractual requirements
- Related Cases:
- [2015] 4 SLR 615
- [2016] 5 SLR 1011
- Adjudicator's Jurisdiction
- Outcome: The court found that the adjudicator had jurisdiction to grant the additional preliminaries and that his decision was not reviewable.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Exceeding jurisdiction by assessing additional preliminaries
- Applicability of statutory timelines
- Related Cases:
- [2018] 1 SLR 317
- [2017] 4 SLR 277
- Estoppel
- Outcome: The court found that the developer was estopped from raising objections due to its failure to file a payment response.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to file payment response
- Duty to speak
- Related Cases:
- [2018] 1 SLR 317
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside of adjudication determination
- Stay of enforcement of adjudication determination
9. Cause of Actions
- Claim for payment under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act
10. Practice Areas
- Construction Law
- Commercial Litigation
- Arbitration
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lau Fook Hoong Adam v GTH Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2015] 4 SLR 615 | Singapore | Cited regarding the validity of payment claims submitted after the final payment claim and/or final certificate had been issued. |
| Audi Construction Pte Ltd v Kian Hiap Construction Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 317 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a respondent has a duty to raise objections to a payment claim in its payment response, and failure to do so constitutes a waiver of the right to object. |
| Grouteam Pte Ltd v UES Holdings Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 5 SLR 1011 | Singapore | Cited regarding the permissibility of a payment claim that merely repeated an earlier claim under section 10(4) of the SOPA. |
| Metropole Pte Ltd v Designshop Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2017] 4 SLR 277 | Singapore | Cited regarding the adjudicator’s jurisdiction to interpret a term of the parties’ contract. |
| W Y Steel Construction Pte Ltd v Osko Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 380 | Singapore | Cited regarding the consequences of a respondent failing to ventilate reasons for withholding payment within the timelines prescribed by the Act. |
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 |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) s 10(1) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) s 10(4) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) s 15(3)(a) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Adjudication determination
- Payment claim
- Payment response
- Final certificate
- SOPA
- Estoppel
- Jurisdiction
- Additional preliminaries
- Maintenance period
15.2 Keywords
- Construction
- SOPA
- Adjudication
- Payment Claim
- Singapore
16. Subjects
- Construction Dispute
- Arbitration
- Contract Law
17. Areas of Law
- Building and Construction Law
- Dispute Resolution
- Contract Law
- Arbitration Law