Asia Grand v A I Associates: SOPA & Date of Service of Payment Claim
In Asia Grand Pte Ltd v A I Associates Pte Ltd, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore heard an application by Asia Grand Pte Ltd to set aside an adjudication determination made in favour of A I Associates Pte Ltd under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (SOPA). The court, presided over by Judicial Commissioner Teh Hwee Hwee, addressed issues concerning the date of service of a payment claim and whether a contract providing for weekly progress claims falls within the ambit of SOPA. The court allowed the application, setting aside the adjudication determination, finding that the adjudication application was filed prematurely.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Application allowed and Adjudication Determination set aside.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The court addressed the date of service of a payment claim under SOPA and whether weekly progress claims fall under SOPA's ambit. The adjudication determination was set aside.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Asia Grand Pte Ltd | Claimant, Respondent | Corporation | Application allowed | Won | Lee Wei Yung, Harpal Singh |
| A I Associates Pte Ltd | Defendant, Applicant | Corporation | Adjudication Determination set aside | Lost | Chia Swee Chye Kelvin |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Teh Hwee Hwee | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Lee Wei Yung | Tito Isaac & Co LLP |
| Harpal Singh | Tito Isaac & Co LLP |
| Chia Swee Chye Kelvin | Lumen Law Corporation |
4. Facts
- Asia Grand Pte Ltd (AGPL) engaged A I Associates Pte Ltd (AI) for remodeling work at Fairmont Hotel.
- The contract did not specify the date for serving payment claims.
- The contract provided for weekly progress claims.
- AI served a payment claim on AGPL on 16 November 2022.
- AI lodged an adjudication application on 13 December 2022.
- AGPL served a payment response on 14 December 2022.
- The Adjudicator determined that he had jurisdiction and ordered AGPL to pay AI $94,097.21 plus adjudication costs.
5. Formal Citations
- Asia Grand Pte Ltd v A I Associates Pte Ltd, Originating Application No 160 of 2023, [2023] SGHC 175
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Contract awarded to A I Associates Pte Ltd by Asia Grand Pte Ltd. | |
| A I Associates Pte Ltd served payment claim on Asia Grand Pte Ltd. | |
| A I Associates Pte Ltd served a Notice of Intention to Apply for Adjudication and lodged an adjudication application. | |
| Asia Grand Pte Ltd served a payment response. | |
| Adjudication conference held. | |
| Adjudication Determination released. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Date of service of payment claim
- Outcome: The court held that the payment claim was deemed to have been served on the last day of the month in which it was served, regardless of when it was actually served.
- Category: Substantive
- Application of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004
- Outcome: The court held that the contract was within the ambit of the SOPA, despite the provision for weekly progress claims.
- Category: Substantive
- Jurisdictional objection
- Outcome: The court held that the adjudication application was lodged prematurely, rendering the Adjudication Determination invalid.
- Category: Jurisdictional
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside of the Adjudication Determination
9. Cause of Actions
- Application to set aside Adjudication Determination
10. Practice Areas
- Construction Law
- Adjudication
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Libra Building Construction Pte Ltd v Emergent Engineering Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 481 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the SOPA was enacted to introduce a regime for interim payments and a procedure to resolve payment disputes that facilitate cash flow in the construction industry. |
| Citiwall Safety Glass Pte Ltd v Mansource Interior Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 482 | Singapore | Cited to underscore the importance of strict compliance with the timelines under the SOPA for responses, notices, and adjudication applications and responses. |
| Lee Wee Lick Terence (alias Li Weili Terence) v Chua Say Eng (formerly trading as Weng Fatt Construction Engineering) and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 401 | Singapore | Discussed in relation to the interpretation of reg 5(1) of the SOPR, regarding the service of payment claims, but ultimately distinguished due to the 2018 amendments to the SOPA. |
| Comfort Management Pte Ltd v OGSP Engineering Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 979 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the role of a court in reviewing an adjudicator’s determination is not to review the merits of the determination. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004 | Singapore |
| Section 10(2)(a)(ii) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004 | Singapore |
| Section 10(3)(b) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004 | Singapore |
| Section 11(1) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004 | Singapore |
| Section 12(2) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004 | Singapore |
| Section 12(5)(b) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004 | Singapore |
| Section 12(6) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004 | Singapore |
| Section 13(3)(a) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004 | Singapore |
| Section 27(8)(a) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004 | Singapore |
| Section 36(1) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004 | Singapore |
| Section 36(2)(a) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004 | Singapore |
| Section 2(1) of the Interpretation Act 1965 | Singapore |
| Section 4 of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act | Singapore |
| Section 5 of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act | Singapore |
| Section 6(a) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act | Singapore |
| Section 6(b) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act
- Security of Payment Act
- SOPA
- Payment Claim
- Payment Response
- Adjudication Application
- Adjudication Determination
- Prescribed Date
- Weekly Progress Claims
15.2 Keywords
- SOPA
- Construction
- Payment Claim
- Adjudication
- Singapore
16. Subjects
- Construction Dispute
- Security of Payment
- Adjudication
- Statutory Interpretation
17. Areas of Law
- Building and Construction Law
- Statutes and regulations
- Jurisdictional objection