Goldbell Engineering v Etiqa Insurance and Range Construction: Performance Bond Dispute and Abuse of Process
In a dispute before the General Division of the High Court of Singapore, Goldbell Engineering Pte Ltd initiated legal action against Etiqa Insurance Pte Ltd, with Range Construction Pte Ltd as a third party, and Range Construction Pte Ltd initiated legal action against Goldbell Engineering Pte Ltd and Etiqa Insurance Pte Ltd, concerning a performance bond related to a construction project. The court, presided over by Ang Cheng Hock J, ruled in favor of Goldbell Engineering, finding that Etiqa Insurance was obligated to make payment under the bond and that Range Construction had abused the legal process. The court dismissed Range Construction's application for an injunction.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff Goldbell Engineering Pte Ltd; Defendant Range Construction Pte Ltd's application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Goldbell Engineering sues Etiqa Insurance for payment under a performance bond. Court finds Range Construction abused process and orders Etiqa to pay Goldbell.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Etiqa Insurance Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Order to Pay | Lost | |
| Goldbell Engineering Pte Ltd | Plaintiff, Defendant | Corporation | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | |
| Range Construction Pte Ltd | Third Party, Plaintiff | Corporation | Application Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Ang Cheng Hock | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Goldbell and Range entered into a $19 million contract for a construction project.
- Range had the option to provide a cash deposit or a performance bond.
- Range procured a performance bond from Etiqa for $3.8 million.
- The project was beset by disputes over delays and defective work.
- Goldbell requested an extension of the bond's validity period.
- Range obtained an interim injunction to restrain the extension or payment under the bond.
- Etiqa initially undertook to pay the secured sum if the injunction was set aside.
- Range discontinued Suit 1235 against Goldbell and Etiqa.
- Etiqa failed to pay the secured amount under the Bond after the interim injunction was set aside.
5. Formal Citations
- Goldbell Engineering Pte Ltd v Etiqa Insurance Pte Ltd (Range Construction Pte Ltd, third party) and another matter, Originating Summons No 335 of 2021, [2022] SGHC 1
- Goldbell Engineering Pte Ltd v Etiqa Insurance Pte Ltd (Range Construction Pte Ltd, third party) and another matter, Originating Summons No 745 of 2021, [2022] SGHC 1
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Goldbell entered into a contract with Range to appoint it as the Project’s main contractor. | |
| Etiqa issued the Bond in favour of Goldbell. | |
| Contractual completion date. | |
| Meeting between Mr William Chua and Mr Tan Yeow Khoon to discuss matters. | |
| Meeting between Goldbell’s and Range’s representatives. | |
| Goldbell chased Range to confirm that the Bond’s validity period would be extended. | |
| Goldbell chased Range to confirm that the Bond’s validity period would be extended. | |
| Mr Soh sent an email to Goldbell’s representative Mr Vincent Teh. | |
| Goldbell wrote to Etiqa to request for an extension of the Bond. | |
| Range commenced Suit No 1235 of 2019 in the High Court against Goldbell and Etiqa. | |
| Goldbell referred to Range’s audited financial statements filed. | |
| Court had given directions for the trial dates for the suit to be fixed in March 2021. | |
| Goldbell filed its application in Summons No 4065 of 2020 to set aside the interim injunction. | |
| Goldbell made an application in Summons No 4652 of 2020 for Range to provide security for costs for Suit 1235. | |
| Hearing on RA 286. | |
| Parties appeared before the court for the hearing of SUM 4065. | |
| Court gave its decision on the application to set aside the interim injunction. | |
| Goldbell’s solicitors sent a demand for payment under the Bond to Etiqa’s solicitors. | |
| Wong Partnership referred to the Judgment that I had delivered that morning. | |
| PKWA replied to Goldbell’s demand for payment. | |
| Goldbell commenced OS 335 to seek an order that Etiqa make payment under the Bond. | |
| Parties appeared before the court and the court granted Range leave to discontinue Suit 1235 against Etiqa. | |
| Range commenced OS 745. | |
| Court granted Range leave to discontinue the action against Goldbell. | |
| Both matters were fixed to be heard together before the court. |
7. Legal Issues
- Abuse of Process
- Outcome: The court found that Range Construction abused the legal process by taking inconsistent positions.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Inconsistent positions
- Extended doctrine of res judicata
- Enforcement of Performance Bond
- Outcome: The court ordered Etiqa Insurance to make payment under the performance bond to Goldbell Engineering.
- Category: Substantive
- Res Judicata
- Outcome: The court found that Range Construction was precluded by the doctrine of res judicata from re-litigating issues.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Issue estoppel
- Contractual Interpretation
- Outcome: The court interpreted the terms of the performance bond, specifically clause 6, regarding the extension of the bond's validity period.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Payment under Performance Bond
- Permanent Injunction
- Indemnity
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Failure to Pay Under Performance Bond
- Abuse of Process
10. Practice Areas
- Construction Disputes
- Commercial Litigation
- Injunctions
- Arbitration
11. Industries
- Construction
- Insurance
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Samsung C&T Corp v Soon Li Heng Civil Engineering Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 955 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the binding effect of an adjudication determination on the parties includes a form of issue estoppel binding the parties in relation to the issues determined by the adjudicator. |
| The “Vasiliy Golovnin” | N/A | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 994 | N/A | Cited for the principle that an ex parte applicant has a duty to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts in its possession at the time of the application. |
| Erinford Properties Ltd and another v Cheshire County Council | N/A | Yes | [1974] 2 WLR 749 | N/A | Cited regarding an oral application for an Erinford injunction. |
| Treasure Valley Group Ltd v Saputra Teddy and another (Ultramarine Holdings Ltd, Intervener) | N/A | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 358 | N/A | Cited for the doctrine of approbation and reprobation. |
| BWG v BWF | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 1296 | Singapore | Cited for the doctrine of approbation and reprobation in the context of litigation. |
| Aries Telecoms (M) Bhd v ViewQwest Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 108 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a party’s election which gives rise to a prior position must still be reasonably clear to be effective. |
| Recovery Vehicle 1 Pte Ltd v Industries Chimiques Du Senegal and another appeal and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 342 | Singapore | Cited to illustrate the point that the “benefit” that triggers the doctrine is generally constituted by a judgment which that party has obtained in his favour in reliance on his prior (and now inconsistent) position. |
| The Royal Bank of Scotland NV (formerly known as ABN Amro Bank NV) and others v TT International Ltd (nTan Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd and others, other parties) and another appeal | N/A | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 1104 | N/A | Cited for the doctrine of res judicata. |
| Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v MCST Plan No 301 | N/A | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR(R) 157 | N/A | Cited for the requirements to establish a cause of action and/or issue estoppel. |
| Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck and others | N/A | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 453 | N/A | Cited for determining whether there is an abuse of process that attracts the extended doctrine of res judicata. |
| Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc | UK House of Lords | Yes | [1991] 2 AC 93 | United Kingdom | Cited for the exception that issue estoppel admitted of an exception established in the UK House of Lords decision. |
| Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Ministry of Agriculture | N/A | Yes | [1963] AC 691 | N/A | Cited for the principle of a “true” or “business” option. |
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 |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Performance Bond
- Interim Injunction
- Extension Request
- Abuse of Process
- Res Judicata
- Issue Estoppel
- Liquidated Damages
- Maintenance Period
- Undertaking to the Court
- Indemnity
- Unconscionability
15.2 Keywords
- Performance Bond
- Construction
- Injunction
- Singapore
- Contract
- Insurance
- Abuse of Process
- Res Judicata
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Performance Bond | 90 |
| Res Judicata | 80 |
| Abuse of Process | 80 |
| Breach of Contract | 70 |
| Contract Law | 70 |
| Estoppel | 60 |
| Guarantee | 50 |
| Banking and Finance | 50 |
| Civil Procedure | 40 |
| Construction Law | 30 |
| Arbitration | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Construction Dispute
- Contract Law
- Banking Law
- Civil Procedure
- Insurance Law