Global Switch v Arup: Design Contract Dispute over Data Center Cooling & Power
Global Switch (Property) Singapore Pte Ltd sued Arup Singapore Pte Ltd in the High Court of Singapore, alleging breaches of contract and negligence in Arup's role as the M&E consultant for an extension to Global Switch's data center. Global Switch claimed damages exceeding $23.8 million, while Arup counterclaimed for unpaid fees. The court (Quentin Loh J) found Arup liable for nominal damages of $1,000 for a breach related to cooling, but allowed Arup's counterclaims for $71,347.60.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Judgment for Defendant
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Global Switch sued Arup for breach of contract regarding the design of a data center extension. The court awarded nominal damages to Global Switch and allowed Arup's counterclaims.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Global Switch (Property) Singapore Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Nominal damages awarded | Partial | |
| Arup Singapore Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Counterclaims Allowed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Quentin Loh | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Global Switch hired Arup as M&E consultant for an extension to its data center.
- The Extension was to have 4,000 kW of NBP in an “N+1” configuration with a 0.9 diversity factor.
- Arup designed the cooling system for the Extension.
- Space constraints forced the chillers to be located on the roof.
- Arup initially looked to place three containerised DRUPS units at L2.
- GSS issued a “Stop Work Order” to Arup on 17 February 2009.
- Microsoft was prepared to take up the whole Extension, requiring 4,000 kW NBP.
5. Formal Citations
- Global Switch (Property) Singapore Pte Ltd v Arup Singapore Pte Ltd, Suit No 1147 of 2014, [2019] SGHC 122
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Existing Facility began operations | |
| Project to construct the Extension embarked on | |
| GSS asked Arup to look at DRUPS units manufactured by Piller | |
| GSS asked Arup to look at DRUPS units made by EuroDiesel and Hitec | |
| Arup's Engineering Fee Proposal was dated | |
| Arup's Engineering Fee Proposal was sent to GSS by email | |
| GSS's Purchase Order was dated | |
| Arup replied to GSS's query on how much power GSS could actually sell to customers in the Extension | |
| Arup informed GSS that EuroDiesel had confirmed its DRUPS units could achieve a power factor of +0.99 | |
| GSS sent Arup the “GS Global Business Change Programme” | |
| GSS issued a “Stop Work Order” to Arup | |
| Project was reactivated | |
| GSS issued the tender for the DRUPS units | |
| GSS status and recommendation report stated there was an immediate client requirement for data centre space by the middle of 2010 | |
| Microsoft first occupied L3–L4 in phase 1 | |
| Commencement date for phase 2 | |
| Commencement date for phase 3 | |
| Commencement date for phase 4 | |
| Utility mains power supply experienced a disturbance | |
| Incoming feeders from the utility main power supply experienced disturbances | |
| GSS commenced this suit | |
| Trial began | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: Breach found for cooling capacity, but only nominal damages awarded.
- Category: Substantive
- Negligence
- Outcome: Concurrent duty of care in tort existed, but no separate damages awarded.
- Category: Substantive
- Incorporation of Contractual Terms
- Outcome: ACEA Form Contract not incorporated due to ambiguity and lack of pleading.
- Category: Procedural
- Variation of Contract
- Outcome: Requirement of 4,000 kW (3,600 kW with diversity applied) for NBP was varied to 2,800 kW.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
- General Damages
- Interest
- Costs
- Indemnity
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Negligence
10. Practice Areas
- Construction Law
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Construction
- Technology
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No cited cases | |||||
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Data Centre
- Mechanical and Electrical
- No Break Power
- Short Break Power
- Static Uninterruptible Power Supply
- Diesel Rotary Uninterruptible Power Supply
- Computer Room Air Conditioning units
- Redundancy
- Diversity Factor
- Static Transfer Switches
- Power Distribution Units
- Global Switch Directive
- Tier III Uptime Data Centre classification
15.2 Keywords
- Data Center
- Construction
- Breach of Contract
- Negligence
- Power
- Cooling
- Design
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Construction Law | 85 |
| Contract Law | 70 |
| Mechanical and Electrical Design | 60 |
| Design Contracts | 55 |
| Negligence | 50 |
| Implied Terms | 45 |
| Fitness for Purpose Warranty | 40 |
| Scope of Works | 35 |
| Variation | 30 |
| Damages | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Building and Construction Law
- Contract Law
- Engineering