GA Engineering v. Sun Moon Construction: Defective Glass, As-Built Drawings, and Construction Contract Dispute

In a suit before the High Court of Singapore, GA Engineering Pte Ltd, the plaintiff and defendant in counterclaim, sued Sun Moon Construction Pte Ltd, the defendant and plaintiff in counterclaim, for breach of a lump sum subcontract related to a freehold industrial development. GA Engineering alleged defective glass installation, failure to submit as-built drawings, and other breaches. Sun Moon Construction counterclaimed for unpaid balances and adjudication costs. The court, presided over by Justice Vinodh Coomaraswamy, found Sun Moon Construction liable for some of the alleged defects and ordered damages to be assessed. The court also found in favor of Sun Moon Construction on its counterclaim for unpaid balances and retention sums, with damages to be assessed.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff in part and Judgment for Defendant in Counterclaim in part.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

GA Engineering sued Sun Moon Construction for breach of contract over defective works. The court found Sun Moon liable for some defects and ordered damages.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
GA Engineering Pte LtdPlaintiff, DefendantCorporationPartial JudgmentPartial
Sun Moon Construction Pte LtdDefendant, PlaintiffCorporationPartial JudgmentPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Vinodh CoomaraswamyJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Tan Beng SweeCTLC Law Corporation
Leonard LeeCTLC Law Corporation
Xhuanelado OwenKalco Law LLC

4. Facts

  1. GA Engineering and Sun Moon Construction entered into a lump sum subcontract in June 2014.
  2. Sun Moon Construction was to design, supply, and install furnishings for a freehold industrial development.
  3. The subcontract price was $2.19 million.
  4. The Temporary Occupation Permit for the project was issued in June 2016.
  5. The architect issued the Certificate of Completion in November 2016, with retrospective effect from July 2016.
  6. GA Engineering alleged that Sun Moon Construction installed defective glass, failed to submit as-built drawings, and failed to ensure water-tightness.
  7. Sun Moon Construction counterclaimed for unpaid balance, adjudication costs, and release of retention sum.

5. Formal Citations

  1. GA Engineering Pte Ltd v Sun Moon Construction Pte Ltd, Suit No 521 of 2017, [2020] SGHC 167

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Subcontract entered into between GA Engineering and Sun Moon Construction.
Temporary Occupation Permit issued for the Project.
Architect issued the Certificate of Completion with retrospective effect.
Plaintiff handed over completed units to individual subsidiary proprietors.
Parties carried out a series of joint inspections on-site.
Water tightness test conducted.
Building and Construction Authority of Singapore issued the Certificate of Statutory Completion.
Sun Moon Construction submitted payment claim in support of the adjudication application.
GA Engineering requested as-built drawings and 10-year warranty from Sun Moon Construction.
Joint inspection conducted, more white spots appeared on glass panels.
Further joint site inspection conducted.
GA Engineering sought written confirmation from Sun Moon Construction to rectify Glass Defects.
Sun Moon Construction stated it would be replacing bubble panels.
GA Engineering asked for further confirmation of the quantity of replacement glass panels.
GA Engineering emphasized the need for a comprehensive rectification schedule.
GA Engineering granted Sun Moon Construction access to unit #05-03.
GA Engineering provided as-built drawings to the owner.
GA Engineering notified Sun Moon Construction of deduction of $10,330 in Payment Response No 19.
Mantec Engineering Pte Ltd's payment claim for rectification works.
GA Engineering requested a comprehensive rectification schedule.
GA Engineering granted access for units #02-02, #03-02 and #06-02 of the Project.
GA Engineering asked Sun Moon Construction to respond on the next course of action.
GA Engineering executed a sole warranty in respect of the aluminium and glazing works.
Architect emailed GA Engineering, asking for the specifications and catalogue of the aluminium composite panels.
GA Engineering conveyed the architect's request to Sun Moon Construction.
GA Engineering sent a reminder to Sun Moon Construction.
GA Engineering informed Sun Moon Construction that it had not submitted any certificate of conformity.
GA Engineering sent a reminder for Sun Moon Construction to submit the certificate of conformity.
Sun Moon Construction submitted Payment Claim No 35 to GA Engineering.
GA Engineering sent Payment Response No 35.
Trial began.
Oral Closing Submissions.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found the defendant liable for breach of contract in several respects, including defective glass installation, failure to submit as-built drawings and a 10-year joint warranty, and non-compliant installation of doors and a feature wall.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Defective installation
      • Failure to submit documents
      • Failure to ensure water-tightness
      • Non-compliant installation
  2. Incorporation of Main Contract Terms
    • Outcome: The court held that the Glass Specifications were incorporated into the Subcontract.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Damages for Defects
    • Outcome: The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover substantial damages for the loss of its performance interest.
    • Category: Substantive
  4. Enforceability of Contractual Clauses
    • Outcome: The court found that clauses 2.6 and 2.12 of the Subcontract were not void for uncertainty.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Uncertainty
      • Implied terms
  5. Causation in Contractual Claims
    • Outcome: The court held that the plaintiff was not required to prove the cause of the defendant's breach of contract, only the fact of the breach and the resulting loss.
    • Category: Substantive
  6. Retention Money Release
    • Outcome: The court found that the defendant was entitled to the release of 50% of the retention moneys upon satisfactory completion of all works and receipt of the main contract completion certificate.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Satisfactory completion of works
      • Receipt of main contract completion certificate

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages
  2. Order to strike out clauses
  3. Rectification of Subcontract
  4. Assessment of Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Construction Contracts
  • Sub-contracts
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Chia Kok Leong and another v Prosperland Pte LtdSingapore Court of AppealYes[2005] 2 SLR(R) 484SingaporeCited for exceptions to the general rule that a plaintiff is entitled to recover damages only for loss which a breach of contract causes the plaintiff itself to suffer.
Family Food Court (a firm) v Seah Boon Lock and another (trading as Boon Lock Duck and Noodle House)Singapore Court of AppealYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 272SingaporeCited for exceptions to the general rule that a plaintiff is entitled to recover damages only for loss which a breach of contract causes the plaintiff itself to suffer.
The AlbazeroN/AYes[1977] AC 774N/ACited in Prosperland for the narrow ground exception, allowing a plaintiff to recover substantial damages on behalf of a third party.
St Martins Property Corporation Ltd v Sir Robert McAlpine LtdN/AYes[1994] 1 AC 85N/ACited in Prosperland for the broad ground exception, allowing a plaintiff to recover substantial damages for the loss of its performance interest.
R1 International Pte Ltd v Lonstroff AGN/AYes[2015] 1 SLR 521N/ACited for the principle that the approach to determine whether terms are incorporated is the orthodox objective approach.
Bintai Kindenko Pte Ltd v Samsung C&T Corp and anotherN/AYes[2019] 2 SLR 295N/ACited for the principle that a party is bound by all the terms of a contract that it signs, even if that party did not read or understand those terms.
Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd. v ForsythN/AYes[1996] 1 AC 344N/ACited in Family Food Court for the objective test of reasonableness to the performance interest claimed.
Sunny Metal & Engineering Pte Ltd v Ng Khim Ming EricCourt of AppealYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 782SingaporeCited for the use of the 'but for' test in contract cases to determine the issue of causation in fact.
Anti-Corrosion Pte Ltd v Berger Paints Singapore Pte Ltd and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2012] 1 SLR 427SingaporeCited for applying the 'but for' test of causation to demonstrate the necessary causal link between the breach and the loss claimed by the plaintiff.
Grossner Jens v Raffles Holdings LtdN/AYes[2004] 1 SLR(R) 202N/ACited for the principle that courts may have recourse to a previous course of dealing or trade practice to remedy potential uncertainties or gaps in the terms of a contract.
Gn Muey Muey v Goh Poh ChooN/AYes[2000] 1 SLR(R) 704N/ACited for the principle that courts may have recourse to a previous course of dealing or trade practice to remedy potential uncertainties or gaps in the terms of a contract.
Hillas & Co Ltd v Arcos LtdN/AYes(1932) 147 LT 503N/ACited for the principle that courts may use the general touchstone of reasonableness to remedy potential uncertainties or gaps in the terms of a contract.
Gardner Smith (SE Asia) Pte Ltd v Jee Woo Trading Pte LtdN/AYes[1998] 1 SLR(R) 950N/ACited for the principle that a court strives to uphold agreements where possible rather than to strike them down on the basis of uncertainty.
East v Pantiles (Plant Hire)N/AYes[1982] 2 EGLR 111N/ACited for the prerequisites for correcting a contract as a matter of construction.
Ng Swee Hua v Auston International Group Ltd and AnotherHigh CourtYes[2008] SGHC 241SingaporeCited for the application of the prerequisites for correcting a contract as a matter of construction.
Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes LtdN/AYes[2009] 1 AC 1101N/ACited for the discussion of the prerequisites for correcting a contract as a matter of construction.
V Nithia (co-administratrix of the estate of Ponnusamy Sivapakiam, deceased) v Buthmanaban s/o Vaithilingam and anotherN/AYes[2015] 5 SLR 1422N/ACited for the principle that parties are bound by their pleadings and the court is precluded from deciding on a matter that the parties themselves have decided not to put into issue.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Subcontract
  • Glass Defects
  • As-built drawings
  • Lump sum contract
  • Retention money
  • Water tightness
  • Certificate of Conformity
  • Shop Drawings
  • Feature Wall
  • Glass Specifications

15.2 Keywords

  • construction
  • contract
  • defects
  • glass
  • drawings
  • warranty
  • Singapore
  • litigation

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Construction Law90
Building and Construction Contracts80
Lump sum contract70
Breach of Contract70
Sub-contracts60
Contract Law60
Incorporation of main contract terms50
Damages50
Damages for defects40
Arbitration30
Summary Judgement20

16. Subjects

  • Building and Construction Contracts
  • Sub-contracts
  • Damages
  • Building and Construction Law