Vim Engineering v Deluge Fire Protection: Variation Claims & Written Instructions
In a suit between Vim Engineering Pte Ltd (Plaintiff) and Deluge Fire Protection (SEA) Pte Ltd (Defendant), the General Division of the High Court of Singapore, presided over by Judicial Commissioner Andre Maniam, ruled in favor of Deluge. Vim Engineering claimed $1,155,903.43 for balance payment and variation works under a subcontract agreement. Deluge counterclaimed for costs incurred in completing Vim's works and back-charges. The court dismissed Vim's variation claims due to the absence of written instructions as stipulated in the contract and allowed Deluge's counterclaims, resulting in a net judgment in favor of Deluge.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Judgment for Defendant
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court rules against Vim Engineering's variation claims due to lack of written instructions, as required by contract with Deluge Fire Protection.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vim Engineering Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Claims Dismissed | Lost | |
| Deluge Fire Protection (S.E.A.) Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Judgment for Defendant | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Andre Maniam | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Vim Engineering was subcontracted by Deluge for plumbing and sanitary works.
- The Subcontract sum was $1,750,000 for the original scope of works.
- Vim claimed a balance payment of $458,772.85 for the main works and $697,130.58 for variation works.
- Clause 16 of the Subcontract required written instructions from Deluge's project manager for any variation work.
- Vim did not have written instructions for the alleged variation works.
- Deluge counterclaimed for costs incurred in completing Vim's works and back-charges.
- Vim left the project site before the main works were completed and before the end of the defects liability period.
5. Formal Citations
- Vim Engineering Pte Ltd v Deluge Fire Protection (SEA) Pte Ltd, Suit No 1298 of 2018, [2021] SGHC 63
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Subcontract signed | |
| Deluge sent payment certificate 10 with back-charges | |
| Vim emailed first six variation invoices to Deluge | |
| Vim sent variation claim invoices with progress claim 19 | |
| Deluge sent payment certificate 17 with back-charges | |
| Temporary occupation permit obtained | |
| Vim left the project site | |
| Alleged meeting where Mr. AK Tan promised payment | |
| Vim sent revised final progress claim to Deluge | |
| Alleged meeting where Mr. AK Tan promised payment | |
| Vim's lawyers sent letter of demand | |
| Vim sued Deluge | |
| Trial began | |
| Trial continued | |
| Trial continued | |
| Trial continued | |
| Trial continued | |
| Trial continued | |
| Trial continued | |
| Hearing date | |
| Judgment date |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court held that Vim Engineering breached the contract by carrying out variation works without written instructions from Deluge's project manager, as required by the subcontract.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to comply with contractual conditions for variation claims
- Lack of written instructions for variation works
- Related Cases:
- [2017] 5 SLR 203
- Admissibility of Evidence
- Outcome: The court held that certain documents, including site memoranda and toolbox meeting records, were admissible as business records under the Evidence Act.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Hearsay evidence
- Business records exception
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Quantum Meruit
10. Practice Areas
- Construction Contracts
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mansource Interior Pte Ltd v CSG Group Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2017] 5 SLR 203 | Singapore | Cited to emphasize the need to comply with contractual conditions for variation claims, specifically the requirement for written authorization. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Chapter 30B, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Variation Works
- Written Instructions
- Back-Charges
- Subcontract
- Defects Liability Period
- Quantum Meruit
15.2 Keywords
- construction law
- variation claims
- written instructions
- back-charges
- Singapore High Court
- contract law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Construction Law | 95 |
| Building and Construction Contracts | 90 |
| Variations | 80 |
| Contract Law | 80 |
| Scope of Works | 70 |
| Breach of Contract | 70 |
| Quantum meruit | 65 |
| Damages | 60 |
| Evidence | 50 |
| Admissibility of evidence | 45 |
| Hearsay | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Building and Construction Contracts
- Variation Claims
- Contractual Interpretation
- Evidence Law