Crescendas Bionics v Jurong Primewide: Damages for Delay in Biopolis 3 Construction

In Crescendas Bionics Pte Ltd v Jurong Primewide Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore addressed the assessment of damages for delays in the construction of Biopolis 3. Crescendas Bionics, the plaintiff, sued Jurong Primewide, the defendant, for delays in completing the project. The court, presided over by Justice Tan Siong Thye, found both parties responsible for the delays, with Jurong Primewide liable for 161 days. The court considered claims for loss of net rental revenue, holding costs, and site staff expenses, ultimately awarding Crescendas Bionics $2,693,573.91 in damages. The court rejected the multi-year model for calculating damages, favoring the single-year model and addressing issues of causation, remoteness, and apportionment.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff; damages awarded in the amount of $2,693,573.91

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Crescendas Bionics sued Jurong Primewide for delays in the Biopolis 3 construction. The court assessed damages, addressing causation, remoteness, and apportionment.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Crescendas Bionics Pte LtdPlaintiff, Defendant in counterclaimCorporationJudgment for PlaintiffWon
Jurong Primewide Pte LtdDefendant, Plaintiff in counterclaimCorporationPartialPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tan Siong ThyeJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Chan Michael KarfaiTan Kok Quan Partnership
Leong LijieTan Kok Quan Partnership
Parmar Karam SinghTan Kok Quan Partnership
Koh Kia JengDentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Lau Wen JinDentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Alexander Choo Wei WenDentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Tay Yoong Xin AvrilDentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP

4. Facts

  1. Crescendas Bionics engaged Jurong Primewide to build Biopolis 3 under a Letter of Intent.
  2. The contractual completion date was 22 January 2010, but Biopolis 3 was completed on 12 January 2011.
  3. Crescendas Bionics was responsible for 173 days of delay due to acts of prevention.
  4. Jurong Primewide was responsible for 161 days of delay.
  5. The plaintiff sought general damages for delayed completion, including loss of net rental revenue, holding costs, and site staff expenses.
  6. The defendant argued that the plaintiff's losses were not caused by the defendant's delay and were too remote.
  7. The court appointed a court expert to assist in assessing the quantum of the plaintiff’s loss of net rental revenue.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Crescendas Bionics Pte Ltd v Jurong Primewide Pte Ltd, Suit No 477 of 2015, [2021] SGHC 189
  2. Crescendas Bionics Pte Ltd v Jurong Primewide Pte Ltd, , [2019] SGHC 4
  3. Jurong Primewide Pte Ltd v Crescendas Bionics Pte Ltd and another appeal, , [2019] SGCA 63

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Letter of Intent signed
Parties signed Letter of Intent
Construction of Biopolis 3 commenced
Resident Engineer terminated
Piling works delayed
Chang Hua Pte Ltd introduced as tenderer
Tender report submitted for approval
Revised tender bids re-submitted
Tien Rui Pte Ltd and Shanghai Construction Co Pte Ltd’s joint tender submissions introduced
Final tender recommendation issued
RC works trade contract awarded
Contractual completion date under LOI
Registered Inspector conducted inspection
SO informed defendant of follow-up works
BCA conducted pre-TOP inspection
SO directed to apply for TOP
Biopolis 3 certified as completed
Trial bifurcated
Trial commenced
Trial concluded
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Damages
    • Outcome: The court assessed damages for the delay, considering various heads of loss and applying principles of causation, remoteness, and mitigation.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Apportionment
      • Assessment
      • Measure of damages
      • Mitigation
      • Quantum
      • Remoteness
  2. Causation
    • Outcome: The court found that the defendant's delay was an effective cause of the plaintiff's losses, rejecting the defendant's arguments on causation.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Remoteness of damage
    • Outcome: The court held that the pre-completion loss of net rental revenue was not too remote, but the post-completion loss was too remote to be recoverable.
    • Category: Substantive
  4. Apportionment
    • Outcome: The court apportioned liability for the losses between the plaintiff and the defendant based on the duration of delay attributable to each party.
    • Category: Substantive
  5. Liquidated damages
    • Outcome: The court held that the liquidated damages clause in the LOI did not act as a cap on the general damages recoverable by the plaintiff.
    • Category: Substantive
  6. Functions of judge
    • Outcome: The court outlined the functions of the judge in the proceedings.
    • Category: Procedural
  7. Expert witnesses
    • Outcome: The court outlined the role of expert witnesses in the proceedings.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Construction Law

11. Industries

  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Crescendas Bionics Pte Ltd v Jurong Primewide Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2019] SGHC 4SingaporeAffirmed on appeal, establishing liabilities of parties for delays in construction.
Denka Advantech Pte Ltd and another v Seraya Energy Pte Ltd and another and other appealsCourt of AppealNo[2020] SGCA 119SingaporeCited for the principles underpinning general and liquidated damages.
J G Collins Insurance Agencies Ltd v Elsley EstateSupreme Court of CanadaNo[1978] 2 SCR 916CanadaCited by the defendant for the proposition that the amount of damages recoverable under a liquidated damages clause should act as a cap on the defendant’s liability to pay general damages.
Guay Seng Tiong Nickson v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtNo[2016] 3 SLR 1079SingaporeCited for the principle that the court approaches the question of causation on a common-sense basis.
Sunny Metal & Engineering Pte Ltd v Ng Khim Ming EricCourt of AppealNo[2007] 3 SLR(R) 782SingaporeCited for the usual test of causation to be applied in breach of contract cases is the but-for test.
Smile Inc Dental Surgeons Pte Ltd v OP3 International Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2020] 3 SLR 1234SingaporeCited for the principle that when the defendant’s breach of contract is one of two concurrent causes of the plaintiff’s losses, the defendant can be held liable so long as his breach was an effective cause of the plaintiff’s losses.
Financial Conduct Authority v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd and others (Hiscox Action Group Intervening)UK Supreme CourtNo[2021] 2 WLR 123United KingdomCited by the plaintiff for the approach to causation where there are concurrent causes of loss.
Out of the Box Pte Ltd v Wanin Industries Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2013] 2 SLR 363SingaporeCited for the principles of remoteness of damage in breach of contract cases, applying the rule in Hadley v Baxendale.
Hadley v BaxendaleN/AYes(1854) 9 Exch 341N/ACited for the rule on remoteness of damage in contract law.
Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ld v Newman Industries Ld; Coulson & Co Ld (Third Parties)English Court of AppealYes[1949] 2 KB 528EnglandCited for the restatement of the rule in Hadley v Baxendale and the distinction between direct and indirect losses.
Singapore Telecommunications Ltd v Starhub Cable Vision LtdCourt of AppealNo[2006] 2 SLR(R) 195SingaporeCited for the principle that whether a particular head of loss is direct or indirect may depend on the circumstances.
PH Hydraulics & Engineering Pte Ltd v Airtrust (Hong Kong) Ltd and another appealCourt of AppealNo[2017] 2 SLR 129SingaporeCited by the defendant for the argument that the plaintiff’s entire claim for loss of net rental revenue is no different from a claim for loss of profits, which is a form of indirect loss.
Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd v Abgarus Pty LtdNew South Wales Supreme CourtNo(1992) 33 NSWLR 504AustraliaCited by the defendant for the argument that the plaintiff’s entire claim for loss of net rental revenue is no different from a claim for loss of profits, which is a form of indirect loss.
Ajit Chandrasekar Prabhu and another v Yap Beng Kooi and anotherHigh CourtNo[2015] SGHC 280SingaporeCited by the defendant for the argument that the plaintiff’s entire claim for loss of net rental revenue is no different from a claim for loss of profits, which is a form of indirect loss.
Robertson Quay Investment Pte Ltd v Steen Consultants Pte Ltd and anotherCourt of AppealNo[2008] 2 SLR(R) 623SingaporeCited for the principle that loss of profits or rental would not necessarily be recoverable under the first limb of the rule in Hadley v Baxendale.
Chua Tian Chu and another v Chin Bay Ching and anotherHigh CourtNo[2011] SGHC 126SingaporeCited for the principle that where liquidated damages are unavailable, general damages may be recoverable at common law for any delay occasioned after the reasonable date for completion.
Alvin Nicholas Nathan v Raffles Assets (Singapore) Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2016] 2 SLR 1056SingaporeCited for the principle that claims for expectation losses and reliance losses are generally alternative claims between which a plaintiff must elect.
Tembusu Growth Fund Ltd v ACTAtek, Inc and othersCourt of AppealYes[2018] 4 SLR 1213SingaporeCited for the principle that a plaintiff must take all reasonable steps to mitigate the loss it suffered as a result of a defendant’s breach.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Building Control Act (Cap 29)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Biopolis 3
  • Letter of Intent
  • Acts of prevention
  • General damages
  • Liquidated damages
  • Net rental revenue
  • Holding costs
  • Site staff expenses
  • Stabilised occupancy
  • Multi-year model
  • Single-year model
  • Remoteness of damage
  • Causation
  • Apportionment

15.2 Keywords

  • Construction Delay
  • Damages
  • Contract Law
  • Singapore High Court
  • Biopolis 3

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Damages85
Delay in completion80
Construction Law75
Breach of Contract70
Contract Law65
Remedies60
Causation55
Remoteness of damage50
Evidence Law50
Apportionment45
Assessment40
Measure of Damages35
Mitigation30
Quantum25
Remoteness20
Principles15
Functions of judge10
Witnesses5
Expert witnesses5

16. Subjects

  • Construction Dispute
  • Contract Law
  • Damages Assessment