Terrenus Energy v Attika Interior: Construction Delay & Defect Dispute

In [2023] SGHC 333, Terrenus Energy SL2 Pte Ltd sued Attika Interior + MEP Pte Ltd in the General Division of the High Court of Singapore for damages arising from alleged defects and delays in the construction of a solar farm project. Attika counterclaimed for the balance of the contract price. Justice Kwek Mean Luck found Attika liable for some breaches but awarded primarily nominal damages to Terrenus. The court addressed issues of substantial defects, completion dates, extensions of time, and liquidated damages. Attika's counterclaim for the balance sum was partially allowed, subject to deductions.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Judgment partially for Plaintiff; Counterclaim partially allowed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Terrenus Energy sues Attika Interior for construction defects and delays. The court found some breaches but awarded primarily nominal damages, addressing key issues in construction law.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Terrenus Energy SL2 Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationJudgment partially for PlaintiffPartial
Attika Interior + MEP Pte LtdDefendantCorporationCounterclaim partially allowedPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Kwek Mean LuckJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Teo Wei Xian Kelvin (Zhang Weixian Kelvin)Drew & Napier LLC
Zhao JunningDrew & Napier LLC
Lee Peng Khoon EdwinEldan Law LLP
Amanda Koh Jia YiEldan Law LLP
Smrithi SadasivamEldan Law LLP
Raheja Binte JamaludinEldan Law LLP

4. Facts

  1. Terrenus contracted Attika to construct a solar farm and linkway at Changi Business Park.
  2. The contract sum was $5,100,000, later adjusted to $5,050,500.
  3. Terrenus claimed damages for defects in PEG rod embedment, ground clearance, and tree root removal.
  4. Terrenus also claimed liquidated damages and general damages for delays.
  5. Attika counterclaimed for the balance of the contract price.
  6. Terrenus terminated Attika's employment on a without-default basis.
  7. The court found some non-compliance but deemed the alleged defects not substantial.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Terrenus Energy SL2 Pte Ltd v Attika Interior + MEP Pte Ltd, Suit No 173 of 2022, [2023] SGHC 333

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Contract signed between Terrenus and Attika
Original date for Partial Completion
Original Date of Completion
Temporary Occupation Permit issued by BCA
Terrenus terminated Attika’s employment
Approval from NParks for Certificate of Statutory Completion obtained
Certificate of Statutory Completion issued by BCA
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that Attika breached the contract in some respects, but Terrenus failed to prove substantial damages.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to comply with specifications
      • Delay in completion
  2. Liquidated Damages
    • Outcome: The court found that the liquidated damages clause was not a penalty and awarded liquidated damages for a limited period of delay.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Extensions of Time
    • Outcome: The court found that Attika was entitled to extensions of time due to delays caused by Terrenus.
    • Category: Substantive
  4. Nominal Damages
    • Outcome: The court awarded nominal damages where Terrenus failed to prove the extent of non-compliance or resulting loss.
    • Category: Substantive
  5. Remoteness of Damage
    • Outcome: The court found that certain damages claimed by Terrenus were too remote to be recoverable.
    • Category: Substantive
  6. Burden of Proof
    • Outcome: The court reiterated that the burden of proof lies on the claimant to prove their case.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages
  2. Liquidated Damages
  3. General Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Construction Law
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Construction
  • Energy

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Gimpex Ltd v Unity Holdings Business LtdCourt of AppealYes[2015] 2 SLR 686SingaporeCited for the principle that the claimant bears the burden of proving non-compliance with contractual specifications.
Ser Kim Koi v GTMS Construction Pte LtdAppellate Division of the High CourtYes[2023] 1 SLR 1097SingaporeCited for the principle that the burden of proof is on the party alleging substantial defects.
Robertson Quay Investment v Steen Consultants Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 623SingaporeCited for the principle that a claimant seeking substantial damages must prove both the fact of damage and its amount.
Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v ForsythHouse of LordsNo[1996] AC 344United KingdomCited for the principle that rectification costs will not be allowed if disproportionate to the loss.
Biofuel Industries Pte Ltd v V8 Environmental Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2018] 2 SLR 199SingaporeCited for the principle that a claimant is entitled only to nominal damages if they cannot establish the amount of loss suffered.
Lee Hsien Loong v Review Publishing Co LtdHigh CourtYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 453SingaporeCited for the principle that the court will have regard to the logic, common sense, coherence, as well as the objective evidence before the court in choosing between conflicting expert testimony.
Armstrong, Carol Ann (executrix of the estate of Peter Traynor, deceased, and on behalf of the dependents of Peter Traynor, deceased) v Quest Laboratories Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2020] 1 SLR 133SingaporeCited for the principle that the court will have regard to the logic, common sense, coherence, as well as the objective evidence before the court in choosing between conflicting expert testimony.
Khoo Bee Keong v Ang Chun HongHigh CourtYes[2005] SGHC 128SingaporeCited for the principle that where the basis or starting point for an expert report is shaky or flawed, the conclusion arrived at will be of little or no use to the court.
Turf Club Auto Emporium Pte Ltd v Yeo Boong HuaCourt of AppealYes[2019] 1 SLR 214SingaporeCited for the principle that where the basis or starting point for an expert report is shaky or flawed, the conclusion arrived at will be of little or no use to the court.
Hadley v BaxendaleCourt of ExchequerYes(1854) 9 Exch 341EnglandCited for the principle of remoteness of damage in contract law.
Vita Health Laboratories Pte Ltd v Pang Seng MengHigh CourtNo[2004] 4 SLR(R) 162SingaporeCited for the principle that greater scrutiny should be accorded to the evidence of an expert who was previously engaged by one of the parties, and that the weight of such evidence should be limited.
Kaufman, Gregory Laurence and others v Datacraft Asia LtdHigh CourtNo[2005] SGHC 174SingaporeCited for the principle that greater scrutiny should be accorded to the evidence of an expert who was previously engaged by one of the parties, and that the weight of such evidence should be limited.
Denka Advantech Pte Ltd v Seraya Energy Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2021] 1 SLR 631SingaporeCited for the principles relating to penalty clauses and liquidated damages.
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co LtdHouse of LordsYes[1915] AC 79United KingdomCited for the principles relating to penalty clauses and liquidated damages.
CLAAS Medical Centre Pte Ltd v Ng Boon ChingHigh CourtYes[2010] 2 SLR 386SingaporeCited for the principle that the question to be considered is not whether there are possible circumstances where a lesser loss would be suffered, but whether the sum is so extravagant, having regard to the range of damages which the innocent party was likely to suffer, that the clause could not constitute a genuine estimate of the damages.
CIFG Special Assets Capital 1 Ltd v Polimet Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2017] SGHC 22SingaporeCited for the principle that a clause is not a penalty simply because it results in overpayment in particular circumstances and the parties are allowed a generous margin to determine the agreed damages to be payable upon breach.
Chan Ah Beng v Liang and Sons Holdings (S) Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2012] 3 SLR 1088SingaporeCited for the principle that an innocent party cannot claim unliquidated damages in addition to liquidated damages which were designed to deal with the loss that has occurred.
Crescendas Bionics Pte Ltd v Jurong Primewide Pte LtdHigh CourtNo[2021] SGHC 189SingaporeCited for the principle that general damages and liquidated damages are underpinned by different considerations, and there is no reason to cap the general damages recoverable to the amount of liquidated damages.
Crescendas Bionics Pte Ltd v Jurong Primewide Pte LtdAppellate DivisionYes[2023] 1 SLR 536SingaporeCited for the principle that a liquidated damages clause should not restrict the quantum which the employer may claim in general damages.
TT International Ltd v Ho Lee Construction Pte LtdHigh CourtNo[2017] SGHC 62SingaporeCited for the principle that considerations of fairness or inadequacy of compensation are not relevant to interpretation.
CAA Technologies Pte Ltd v Newcon Builders Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2017] 2 SLR 940SingaporeCited for the principle that the claimant must show that the defendant was the sole cause of the claimant's liability.
Airtrust (Hong Kong) Ltd v PH Hydraulics & Engineering Pte LtdHigh CourtNo[2016] 5 SLR 103SingaporeCited for the principle that the court should exercise its discretion to award costs on an indemnity basis.
Hoenig v IsaacsCourt of AppealYes[1952] 2 All ER 176EnglandCited for the principle that the court will generally lean against an interpretation of a contract which would deprive the contractor of any payment at all simply because there are some defects or omissions.
Grains and Industrial Products Trading Pte Ltd v Bank of IndiaCourt of AppealYes[2016] 3 SLR 1308SingaporeCited for the principle that claimants who have been out of pocket without basis should be able to recover interest on money that is found to have been owed to them from the date of their entitlement until the date it is paid.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004Singapore
Evidence Act 1893Singapore
Civil Law Act 1909Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • PEG Rods
  • Solar Farm
  • Linkway
  • Partial Completion
  • Date of Completion
  • Extension of Time
  • Liquidated Damages
  • Certificate of Statutory Completion
  • Temporary Occupation Permit
  • Root Ball
  • Substations

15.2 Keywords

  • construction
  • contract
  • delay
  • defects
  • damages
  • solar farm
  • Singapore
  • liquidated damages
  • extension of time

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Building and Construction Contracts85
Contract Law80
Construction Law75
Liquidated Damages70
Extension of Time70
Lump sum contract65
Damages60
Remoteness of damage50
Arbitration30
Civil Procedure25
Evidence20

16. Subjects

  • Construction Dispute
  • Contract Law
  • Damages
  • Building and Construction Law