Range Construction v Goldbell Engineering: SOPA & Set-Off for Liquidated Damages

In Range Construction Pte Ltd v Goldbell Engineering Pte Ltd, the Singapore Court of Appeal addressed whether the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (SOPA) permits an employer, Goldbell Engineering Pte Ltd, to set off liquidated damages against a contractor's, Range Construction Pte Ltd, payment claim. The court dismissed Range's appeal, holding that the adjudicator had jurisdiction to consider Goldbell's set-off for liquidated damages under the pre-amendment SOPA. The court also found that the adjudicator did not breach the fair hearing rule or exceed his jurisdiction in determining the extent of Goldbell's entitlement to liquidated damages.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore Court of Appeal case concerning whether SOPA permits employers to set-off liquidated damages against contractor's payment claims. Appeal dismissed.

1.7 Decision Date

8 April 2021

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Goldbell Engineering Pte Ltd	Respondent	Corporation	Appeal Dismissed	Won	Chong Chi Chuin Christopher of Drew & Napier LLC Teo Wei Xian Kelvin of Drew & Napier LLC Chester Su Yong Meng of Drew & Napier LLC
Range Construction Pte Ltd	Appellant, Applicant	Corporation	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Tan Chee Meng of WongPartnership LLP Chin Yan Xun of WongPartnership LLP Choo Poh Hua Josephine of WongPartnership LLP Samuel Navindran of WongPartnership LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Tay Yong Kwang	Justice of the Court of Appeal	No
Steven Chong	Justice of the Court of Appeal	Yes
Quentin Loh	Judge of the Appellate Division	No

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Chong Chi Chuin Christopher	Drew & Napier LLC
Teo Wei Xian Kelvin	Drew & Napier LLC
Chester Su Yong Meng	Drew & Napier LLC
Tan Chee Meng	WongPartnership LLP
Chin Yan Xun	WongPartnership LLP
Choo Poh Hua Josephine	WongPartnership LLP
Samuel Navindran	WongPartnership LLP

4. Facts

Range was appointed as Goldbell's contractor for the design and erection of a six-storey workshop.
The contract incorporated the Real Estate Developers’ Association of Singapore Design and Build Conditions of Main Contract.
The contractual completion date was extended to 7 September 2018.
A Temporary Occupation Permit was granted on 2 October 2018.
Range served a payment claim on Goldbell on 2 December 2019.
Goldbell submitted its payment response on 20 December 2019, including a set-off for liquidated damages.
The adjudicator awarded Range $205,647.43 after deducting $852,000 in liquidated damages payable to Goldbell.
Goldbell had not issued the Handing Over Certificate at the time of the adjudication proceedings.
The adjudicator relied on an email dated 17 November 2018 to determine the period for liquidated damages.

5. Formal Citations

Range Construction Pte Ltd v Goldbell Engineering Pte Ltd, Civil Appeal No 91 of 2020, [2021] SGCA 34

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2017-04-19	Letter of award issued to Range Construction Pte Ltd for the Project.
2018-08-31	Original contractual completion date.
2018-09-07	Extended contractual completion date.
2018-10-02	Temporary Occupation Permit granted.
2018-11-17	Email from Range Construction's managing director regarding ongoing works.
2019-12-02	Range Construction served payment claim PC 28 on Goldbell Engineering.
2019-12-15	Amendments to the SOPA came into effect.
2019-12-20	Goldbell Engineering submitted payment response PR 1.
2020-01-16	Goldbell Engineering submitted adjudication response and written submissions.
2020-01-29	Range Construction submitted reply submissions.
2020-09-18	High Court judge dismissed Range Construction’s application in Range Construction Pte Ltd v Goldbell Engineering Pte Ltd [2020] SGHC 191.
2021-01-22	Judgment reserved.
2021-04-09	Judgment delivered.

7. Legal Issues

Jurisdiction of Adjudicator under SOPA
- Outcome: The court held that the adjudicator had jurisdiction to consider Goldbell's set-off for liquidated damages under the pre-amendment SOPA.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
  - Scope of adjudicator's power to consider set-offs
  - Interpretation of pre-amendment SOPA
  - Effect of SOPA amendments on adjudicator's jurisdiction
- Related Cases:
  - [2020] SGHC 191
  - [2005] NSWCA 228
  - [2020] SGCA 121
  - [2007] NSWSC 941
Breach of Natural Justice
- Outcome: The court held that the adjudicator did not breach the rules of natural justice by failing to consider the significance of the grant of the TOP.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Failure to consider relevant submissions
  - Fair hearing rule
  - Consideration of TOP issuance
- Related Cases:
  - [2018] 2 SLR 532
  - [2010] 1 SLR 733
Fair Hearing Rule
- Outcome: The court held that the adjudicator did not breach the fair hearing rule in finding that Range was liable for liquidated damages up till 17 November 2018.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Adjudicator's duty to invite submissions
  - Reliance on specific evidence
  - Determination of completion date
- Related Cases:
  - [2018] 2 SLR 1311

8. Remedies Sought

Setting aside part of the adjudication determination

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

Construction Law
Commercial Litigation
Arbitration

11. Industries

Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Range Construction Pte Ltd v Goldbell Engineering Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2020] SGHC 191	Singapore	Affirmed the High Court's decision that the adjudicator had not acted in excess of jurisdiction by considering Goldbell's claim for liquidated damages.
Coordinated Construction Co Pty Ltd v J M Hargreaves (NSW) Pty Ltd and others	New South Wales Court of Appeal	Yes	[2005] NSWCA 228	New South Wales	Cited for the principle that progress payments for construction work should not be given a narrow construction.
Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2012] 4 SLR 476	Singapore	Cited for the principle that ministerial statements do not have the force of law.
Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] 5 SLR 424	Singapore	Cited for the principle that speeches in Parliament should not be construed as statutory provisions.
Attorney-General v Ting Choon Meng and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] 1 SLR 373	Singapore	Cited for the principle that it is for the court to determine the legal effect of a statutory provision.
Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] 2 SLR 850	Singapore	Cited for the principle that primacy should be accorded to the text of a statutory provision over extraneous material.
Public Prosecutor v Low Kok Heng	High Court	Yes	[2007] 4 SLR(R) 183	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the words of a Minister must not be substituted for the text of the law.
Orion-One Residential Pte Ltd v Dong Cheng Construction Pte Ltd and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2020] SGCA 121	Singapore	Distinguished; the case did not address the issue of set-offs for liquidated damages in payment responses.
Trysams Pty Ltd v Club Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd	Supreme Court of New South Wales	Yes	[2007] NSWSC 941	New South Wales	Cited as an Australian case that indirectly affirms that an adjudicator has jurisdiction to take set-offs for liquidated damages into account.
Glaziers Engineering Pte Ltd v WCS Engineering Construction Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2018] 2 SLR 1311	Singapore	Cited for the principle that it is not the duty of an adjudicator to invite submissions on each and every issue that might arise in adjudication proceedings.
Facade Solution Pte Ltd v Mero Asia Pacific Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2020] 2 SLR 1125	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an adjudication determination is of temporal finality.
Bintai Kindenko Pte Ltd v Samsung C&T Corp	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2018] 2 SLR 532	Singapore	Cited for the principles regarding breach of natural justice in adjudication.
SEF Construction Pte Ltd v Skoy Connected Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2010] 1 SLR 733	Singapore	Cited for the principles regarding breach of natural justice in adjudication.

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
Order 95, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, Rule 5, 2014 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Section 27(5) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act
Security of Payment Act
SOPA
Adjudication
Payment Claim
Payment Response
Liquidated Damages
Set-off
Construction Contract
Adjudication Determination
Handing Over Certificate
Temporary Occupation Permit

15.2 Keywords

Construction
SOPA
Adjudication
Liquidated Damages
Set-off
Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act	95
Construction Law	95
Liquidated Damages	90
Building and Construction Contracts	80
Contract Law	60
Breach of Contract	60
Damages	50
Civil Procedure	30
Costs	20
Estoppel	10

16. Subjects

Construction Dispute
Arbitration
Contract Law
Building and Construction Law