Range Construction v Goldbell Engineering: Setting Aside Adjudication Determination under SOPA

Range Construction Pte Ltd applied to the High Court of Singapore to set aside part of an adjudication determination in favor of Goldbell Engineering Pte Ltd. The adjudication concerned a construction project where Range Construction sought payment, including retention sums and variation claims, while Goldbell Engineering claimed liquidated damages. Lee Seiu Kin J dismissed Range Construction's application, finding no basis to set aside the adjudicator's determination regarding liquidated damages and the valuation of the variation claim.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Building and Construction Law

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Range Construction's application to set aside an adjudication determination awarding liquidated damages and valuing a variation claim was dismissed. The court found no jurisdictional errors or breaches of the fair hearing rule.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Range Construction Pte LtdApplicantCorporationApplication dismissedLostChoo Poh Hua Josephine, Chin Yan Xun
Goldbell Engineering Pte LtdRespondentCorporationApplication dismissedWonCampos Conrad Melville, Chong Jia Hao, Michelle Lim Ann Nee

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lee Seiu KinJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Choo Poh Hua JosephineWongPartnership LLP
Chin Yan XunWongPartnership LLP
Campos Conrad MelvilleRHTLaw Asia LLP
Chong Jia HaoRHTLaw Asia LLP
Michelle Lim Ann NeeRHTLaw Asia LLP

4. Facts

  1. Range Construction was appointed as Goldbell Engineering's contractor.
  2. Range Construction filed Adjudication Application No SOP/AA/008/2020.
  3. Range Construction submitted claims totaling $2,445,225.58.
  4. Range Construction was awarded an adjudicated amount of $205,647.43.
  5. Goldbell Engineering claimed liquidated damages from Range Construction.
  6. The adjudicator awarded $852,000 in liquidated damages to Goldbell Engineering.
  7. The adjudicator valued the nett variation claim at $38,455.54.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Range Construction Pte Ltd v Goldbell Engineering Pte Ltd, Originating Summons No 382 of 2020, [2020] SGHC 191

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Contract awarded to Range Construction
Contractual completion date
Email from Range Construction's managing director admitting project delays
Payment Claim No 28 issued by Range Construction
Adjudication determination issued
Hearing date
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Jurisdiction of Adjudicator
    • Outcome: The court held that the adjudicator did not exceed his jurisdiction.
    • Category: Jurisdictional
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Exceeded jurisdiction by considering liquidated damages
      • Exceeded jurisdiction by designating a completion date
  2. Breach of Fair Hearing Rule
    • Outcome: The court held that there was no breach of the fair hearing rule.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Designating a completion date without instruction
      • Awarding liquidated damages on arguments not submitted
      • Relying on arguments outside assigned parameters
  3. Failure to Consider Relevant Matters
    • Outcome: The court held that the adjudicator did not fail to consider relevant matters.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to consider pleadings about Temporary Occupation Permit
      • Failure to consider evidence other than the 17 November Email
      • Failure to consider jurisdictional objections

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Setting aside adjudication determination

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Construction Litigation
  • Adjudication
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Coordinated Construction Co Pty Ltd v J M Hargreaves (NSW) Pty LtdNew South Wales Court of AppealYes[2005] NSWCA 228AustraliaCited regarding whether a payment claim can include sums that are damages for breach of contract.
Glaziers Engineering Pte Ltd v WCS Engineering Construction Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2018] 2 SLR 1311SingaporeCited for the test of whether parties have been deprived of a fair opportunity to be heard.
W Y Steel Construction Pte Ltd v Osko Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2013] 3 SLR 380SingaporeCited for the recognition that cash flow is the life blood of those in the building and construction industry.
Soh Beng Tee & Co Pte Ltd v Fairmount Development Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 86SingaporeCited regarding the court's duty to avoid setting aside determinations on inconsequential technical breaches of natural justice.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B)Singapore
Section 27(5) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B)Singapore
Order 95, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, Rule 5)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Adjudication Determination
  • Liquidated Damages
  • Handing-Over Certificate
  • Payment Claim
  • Payment Response
  • Variation Works
  • Completion Date
  • Temporary Occupation Permit
  • SOP Act

15.2 Keywords

  • Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act
  • SOPA
  • Adjudication
  • Liquidated Damages
  • Construction Law
  • Singapore

16. Subjects

  • Construction Dispute
  • Adjudication
  • Contract Law

17. Areas of Law

  • Building and Construction Law
  • Construction Adjudication
  • Contract Law