RMD Kwikform Singapore v Ehub Pte Ltd: Breach of Contract & Damages
RMD Kwikform Singapore Pte Ltd sued Ehub Pte Ltd in the General Division of the High Court of Singapore for breach of contract, claiming unpaid sums for equipment hired for five construction projects. Ehub denied the claims and counterclaimed for overpayment and losses due to delayed delivery. The court, presided over by S Mohan J, partially allowed RMD Kwikform's claim, awarding S$570,788.52, and dismissed Ehub's counterclaims. The court found that Ehub was bound by the terms of the agreements and that RMD had proven some of its claims based on its internal records.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff in part
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
RMD Kwikform sued Ehub for unpaid equipment hire sums. Ehub counterclaimed, alleging overpayment and delayed delivery. The court partially allowed RMD's claim.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RMD Kwikform Singapore Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Judgment for Plaintiff in part | Partial | |
| Ehub Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Counterclaims Dismissed | Dismissed |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| S Mohan | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- RMD Kwikform hired equipment to Ehub for five construction projects between 2011 and 2014.
- The projects included One Canberra, Forestville, Sea Horizon, Twin Fountains, and Nassim Hill.
- RMD Kwikform claimed Ehub owed outstanding sums for hiring, purchase, shortage, and damage fees.
- Ehub denied owing any fees and counterclaimed for overpayment and losses.
- Ehub challenged the authenticity of RMD Kwikform's internal records (Axapta Records).
- Ehub argued it had a separate agreement for a 'block price' instead of actual equipment delivered.
- Ehub claimed settlement agreements were reached for some projects, limiting its liability.
5. Formal Citations
- RMD Kwikform Singapore Pte Ltd v Ehub Pte Ltd, Suit No 701 of 2019, [2022] SGHC 129
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Quotation 11306-Q4185-A issued for Nassim Hill project | |
| Quotation 11306-Q4161-C issued for Nassim Hill project | |
| Quotation PS0005-Q4359-A issued for Nassim Hill project | |
| Quotation PS0005-Q4401-C issued for Nassim Hill project | |
| Quotation PRS0036-Q002-B issued for One Canberra project | |
| Email sent by Mr. Tan to Mr. Choo regarding One Canberra project | |
| Airodek equipment moved from car park to main block at Forestville project (approximate) | |
| Quotation PRS00137-Q038-C issued for Twin Fountains project | |
| Quotation PRS000166-FV-Q020F-Rev 2 issued for Forestville project | |
| Quotation PRS00183-SH-REV2-Q039-E issued for Sea Horizon project | |
| Quotation PRS000189-SH-Rev-Q039-G issued for Sea Horizon project | |
| Alleged agreement to waive charges for Wallform equipment at Forestville project (approximate) | |
| Discussion between Ms. Young and Mr. Ng regarding Forestville project | |
| Quotation PRS00137-TF-Q038-D1 issued for Twin Fountains project | |
| Email from Ms. Young to Mr. Ng regarding Forestville project | |
| Ms. Young emailed the defendant attaching the invoice for the month of December 2014 | |
| Email from Ms. Young to the defendant regarding Forestville project | |
| Mr. Ng replied to disagree that the defendant should be liable for 6.5 months of hiring fees | |
| Email from Mr. Choo to Mr. Hartland regarding settlement agreement | |
| Email from Mr. Bowden to Mr. Choo regarding payments | |
| Invoice issued for One Canberra project shortage and damage fees | |
| Letter from Mr. Bowden to Mr. Choo regarding outstanding fees | |
| Email from Mr. Choo to Mr. Bowden regarding Nassim Hill and One Canberra projects | |
| Email from Mr. Bowden to Mr. Choo regarding resolution of accounts | |
| Email from Mr. Box to Mr. Choo regarding Sea Horizon shortage material charges | |
| Invoice INS003947 issued for Sea Horizon project loss charges | |
| Letter of demand from plaintiff's solicitors | |
| Suit commenced | |
| Trial began | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that the defendant breached the contract by failing to pay the outstanding sums for equipment hired.
- Category: Substantive
- Authenticity of Documentary Evidence
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff had proven the authenticity of the Axapta Records.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2021] 1 SLR 1217
- [2016] 5 SLR 735
- Limitation of Actions
- Outcome: The court found that some of the plaintiff's claims for the Nassim Hill project were time-barred.
- Category: Procedural
- Doctrine of Laches
- Outcome: The court rejected the defendant's argument that the plaintiff's claim was barred by the doctrine of laches.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2022] 1 SLR 136
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CIMB Bank Bhd v World Fuel Services (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 1217 | Singapore | Cited for the test for proving the authenticity of a document. |
| Columbia Asia Healthcare Sdn Bhd and another v Hong Hin Kit Edward and another | High Court | Yes | [2016] 5 SLR 735 | Singapore | Cited to illustrate the effect of section 67A of the Evidence Act regarding admissibility of secondary evidence. |
| Jet Holding Ltd and others v Cooper Cameron (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 3 SLR(R) 769 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there should not be an overly punctilious insistence on compliance with the Evidence Act. |
| Bintai Kindenko Pte Ltd v Samsung C&T Corp and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 295 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a party is bound by the terms of a contract they sign, absent fraud or misrepresentation. |
| Zurich Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd v B-Gold Interior Design & Construction Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 1029 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to contradict a written contract intended to embody the entire agreement. |
| Sembcorp Marine Ltd v PPL Holdings Pte Ltd and another and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 193 | Singapore | Cited for the three-step test for implying a term into a contract. |
| Esben Finance Ltd and others v Wong Hou-Lianq Neil | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 1 SLR 136 | Singapore | Cited for the application of the doctrine of laches. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 32(1) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 67A | Singapore |
| Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) s 6(1)(a) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Axapta Records
- Hiring Fees
- Purchase Fees
- Shortage Fees
- Damage Fees
- Block Price
- Settlement Agreement
- Formwork
- Falsework
- Scaffolding Systems
15.2 Keywords
- Contract
- Breach
- Damages
- Equipment Hire
- Construction
- Singapore
- Litigation
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Contracts | 80 |
| Breach of Contract | 75 |
| Contract Law | 75 |
| Measure of Damages | 60 |
| Evidence | 50 |
| Limitation | 50 |
| Damages | 50 |
| Civil Procedure | 40 |
| Judgments and Orders | 30 |
| Estoppel | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Contract Dispute
- Construction Dispute
- Equipment Hire
- Civil Litigation