Crescendas Bionics v Jurong Primewide: Building & Construction Delay, Loss of Chance, Damages

Crescendas Bionics Pte Ltd, a property developer, sued Jurong Primewide Pte Ltd, a building contractor, in the Appellate Division of the High Court of Singapore, regarding delays in the construction of Biopolis 3. The court, comprising Woo Bih Li JAD, Hoo Sheau Peng J, and Quentin Loh SJ, heard appeals concerning the assessment of damages, pre-judgment interest, and costs. The court allowed the appeal in part, finding Jurong Primewide liable for $4,185,802.60 in net rental revenue loss and $1,061,285.86 in Holding Costs. The court dismissed the appeal regarding pre-judgment interest.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Appellate Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed in Part

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Crescendas Bionics sued Jurong Primewide for construction delay. The court addressed causation, remoteness, and damages, awarding Crescendas $4,185,802.60.

1.7 Decision Date

8 February 2023

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Crescendas Bionics Pte Ltd	Appellant, Plaintiff, Defendant in counterclaim	Corporation	Appeal Allowed in Part	Partial	Leong Lijie of Tan Kok Quan Partnership Karam Singh Parmar of Tan Kok Quan Partnership
Jurong Primewide Pte Ltd	Respondent, Defendant, Plaintiff in counterclaim	Corporation	Appeal Dismissed in Part	Partial	Koh Kia Jeng of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP Lau Wen Jin of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP Alexander Choo Wei Wen of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Woo Bih Li	Judge of the Appellate Division	Yes
Hoo Sheau Peng	Judge of the High Court	No
Quentin Loh	Senior Judge	No

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Leong Lijie	Tan Kok Quan Partnership
Karam Singh Parmar	Tan Kok Quan Partnership
Koh Kia Jeng	Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Lau Wen Jin	Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Alexander Choo Wei Wen	Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP

4. Facts

Crescendas is a property developer.
Jurong Primewide is a general building contractor.
Parties signed a Letter of Intent on 30 June 2008 for Jurong Primewide to build Biopolis 3.
Biopolis 3 is a seven-storey multi-tenanted business park development.
Jurong Primewide was obliged to complete Biopolis 3 by 22 January 2010.
Temporary Occupation Permit was obtained on 12 January 2011.
Crescendas commenced the Suit against Jurong Primewide due to the delay.

5. Formal Citations

Crescendas Bionics Pte Ltd v Jurong Primewide Pte Ltd and other appeals, Civil Appeals Nos 87, 88 and 128 of 2021, [2023] SGHC(A) 9

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2008-06-26	Letter of Intent signed
2008-06-30	Parties signed Letter of Intent
2008-12-26	Crescendas responsible for delay
2008-12-31	Crescendas responsible for delay
2009-01-04	Crescendas responsible for delay
2009-06-01	Crescendas responsible for delay
2009-04-29	Memorandum of understanding signed
2009-08-01	Philip Morris informed Crescendas that the exclusivity period had expired
2010-01-23	Contractual completion date
2010-07-14	Reasonable date of completion
2010-11-01	Crescendas responsible for delay
2010-12-01	Crescendas responsible for delay
2010-12-22	BCA directed the Superintending Officer to apply for the Temporary Occupation Permit
2011-01-12	Temporary Occupation Permit obtained
2015-05-15	Crescendas commenced Suit No 477 of 2015
2015-11-20	Jurong Primewide filed counterclaim
2018-01-01	HC/ORC 1483/2018 in HC/SUM 401/2018
2019-01-01	Liability Judgment (HC) delivered
2019-01-01	Liability Judgment (CA) delivered
2021-08-10	Damages Judgment (HC) delivered
2021-12-22	Crescendas filed CA 128
2022-07-28	Oral hearing
2023-02-09	Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

Causation
- Outcome: Causation was established between the delay attributable to Jurong Primewide and the loss suffered by Crescendas, except for the loss of PetNet as a tenant.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Uncertainty in causation
  - Whether the Combined Delay caused Crescendas to lose Philip Morris and/or PetNet as pre-commitment tenants
- Related Cases:
  - [2007] 3 SLR(R) 782
  - 1 Exch 850
  - 1 All ER 1033
  - [2005] EWHC 181 (TCC)
  - [2020] 3 SLR 1234
  - [2022] 1 SLR 302
Remoteness of Damage
- Outcome: Crescendas’ entire claim for loss of net rental revenue comes within the First Limb of Hadley v Baxendale and is not too remote to be recoverable.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - 9 Exch 341
  - [2013] 2 SLR 363
  - [2008] 2 SLR(R) 623
  - [2017] 2 SLR 129
  - (1992) 33 NSWLR 504
Quantification of Damages
- Outcome: The Multi-Year Model should be used to quantify Crescendas' loss of net rental revenue. The applicable discount rate is 8% on a compounded basis. The loss should be apportioned based on 161 out of 355 days.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Single-Year Model vs Multi-Year Model
  - Applicable discount rate
  - Apportionment of loss
- Related Cases:
  - [2011] 1 SLR 150
  - [2010] 1 SLR 1104
  - [2007] BCSC 1780
Holding Costs
- Outcome: Crescendas is entitled to claim Holding Costs incurred during the 90-day rent-free period.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Rent-free fitting-out period
- Related Cases:
  - [2016] 2 SLR 1056
  - [2020] 3 SLR 1234
  - [2010] 2 SLR 1154
Pre-judgment Interest
- Outcome: The date from which pre-judgment interest in respect of the Shared Savings should run is the date of Crescendas’ writ.
- Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages
General Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

Construction Law
Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Construction
Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Crescendas Bionics Pte Ltd v Jurong Primewide Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2021] SGHC 189	Singapore	Original decision on damages being appealed.
Crescendas Bionics Pte Ltd v Jurong Primewide Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2019] SGHC 4	Singapore	Original decision on liability, affirmed on appeal.
Jurong Primewide Pte Ltd v Crescendas Bionics Pte Ltd and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2019] SGCA 63	Singapore	Affirmed the Liability Judgment (HC) save in relation to the arithmetic computation of the days of delay for which JP was responsible and the time taken for capping beams work.
Kwang In Tong Chinese Temple v Fong Choon Hung Construction Pte Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1997] 1 SLR(R) 907	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a contractor is obligated to complete the project within a reasonable time and failure to do so will render the defendant liable for general damages.
Sunny Metal & Engineering Pte Ltd v Ng Khim Ming Eric	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 3 SLR(R) 782	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a claimant may recover damages for a loss only where the breach of contract was the ‘effective’ or ‘dominant’ cause of that loss.
Robinson v Harman	N/A	Yes	1 Exch 850	England	Cited for the compensatory principle which undergirds the award of damages for a breach of contract.
Asia Hotel Investments Ltd v Starwood Asia Pacific Management Pte Ltd and another	N/A	Yes	[2005] 1 SLR(R) 661	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the loss of chance doctrine allows the claimant to avert the difficulty of proving that the claimant would have acquired the favourable outcome, by allowing the claimant to claim that he could (not would) have obtained the favourable outcome but for the breach.
MK Distripark Pte Ltd v Pedder Warehousing & Logistics (S) Pte Ltd	N/A	Yes	[2013] 3 SLR 433	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the loss of chance doctrine allows the claimant to avert the difficulty of proving that the claimant would have acquired the favourable outcome, by allowing the claimant to claim that he could (not would) have obtained the favourable outcome but for the breach.
AKM v AKN and another and other matters	N/A	Yes	[2014] 4 SLR 245	Singapore	Cited for the principle that there is a substantive distinction between the two ways of looking at loss. In a claim for the loss of actual profits, the plaintiff asserts that but for the breach of contract, he would (not could) have earned profits.
AKN and another v ALC and others and other appeals	N/A	Yes	[2015] 3 SLR 488	Singapore	Appeal from AKM v AKN and another and other matters.
Heskell v Continental Express Ltd and another	N/A	Yes	1 All ER 1033	England	Cited for the principle that if a breach of contract is one of two causes, both co-operating and both of equal efficacy, it is sufficient to carry judgment for damages.
Great Eastern Hotel Company Ltd v John Laing Construction Ltd and another	N/A	Yes	[2005] EWHC 181 (TCC)	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that if a breach of contract is one of the causes both co-operating and of equal efficiency in causing loss to the Claimant the party responsible for breach is liable to the Claimant for that loss.
Smile Inc Dental Surgeons Pte Ltd v OP3 International Pte Ltd	N/A	Yes	[2020] 3 SLR 1234	Singapore	Cited for the principle that when the breach of a contract is one of two causes, the contract-breaker is liable so long as his breach was an effective cause of the plaintiff’s loss.
iVenture Card Ltd and others v Big Bus Singapore City Sightseeing Pte Ltd and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2022] 1 SLR 302	Singapore	Cited for passages from Heskell and Smile Inc.
Hadley v Baxendale	N/A	Yes	9 Exch 341	England	Cited for the remoteness rule in contract law.
Out of the Box Pte Ltd v Wanin Industries Pte Ltd	N/A	Yes	[2013] 2 SLR 363	Singapore	Cited for the two limbs of the remoteness rule in Hadley v Baxendale.
Robertson Quay Investment Pte Ltd v Steen Consultants Pte Ltd and another	N/A	Yes	[2008] 2 SLR(R) 623	Singapore	Cited for the two limbs of the remoteness rule in Hadley v Baxendale.
PH Hydraulics & Engineering Pte Ltd v Airtrust (Hong Kong) Ltd and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] 2 SLR 129	Singapore	Cited to support the proposition that courts have recognised that loss of revenue or profits falls under the Second Limb of Hadley v Baxendale.
Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd v Abgarus Pty Ltd	N/A	Yes	(1992) 33 NSWLR 504	Australia	Cited to support the proposition that courts have recognised that loss of revenue or profits falls under the Second Limb of Hadley v Baxendale.
MFM Restaurants Pte Ltd and another v Fish & Co Restaurants Pte Ltd and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2011] 1 SLR 150	Singapore	Cited as an example where courts had awarded damages for revenue loss suffered over a period of time following a contractual breach, despite the uncertainty in projecting the expected revenue which could have been earned if there had been no breach.
Fish & Co Restaurants Pte Ltd v MFM Restaurants Pte Ltd and another	N/A	Yes	[2010] 1 SLR 1104	Singapore	Cited for the assessment of damages for loss of profits.
Grandison v NovaGold Resources Inc	N/A	Yes	[2007] BCSC 1780	Canada	Cited to support the argument that the court should not adopt a method of assessment where too many variables are at play.
Alvin Nicholas Nathan v Raffles Assets (Singapore) Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2016] 2 SLR 1056	Singapore	Cited for the principle that reliance loss is the costs and expenses the claimant incurred in reliance on the defendant’s contracted-for performance, but which were wasted because of the breach of contract.
The “Asia Star”	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2010] 2 SLR 1154	Singapore	Cited for the rule that the aggrieved party who goes beyond what the law requires of it and avoids incurring any loss at all will not be entitled to recover any damages.
Turf Club Auto Emporium Pte Ltd and others v Yeo Boong Hua and others and another appeal	N/A	Yes	[2018] 2 SLR 655	Singapore	Cited for the principle that if the fact of damage is shown but no evidence is given as to its amount such that it is virtually impossible to assess damages, this will generally permit only an award of nominal damages.
Experience Hendrix LLC v PPX Enterprises Inc	N/A	Yes	[2003] 1 All ER (Comm) 830	England	Cited for the principle that if the fact of damage is shown but no evidence is given as to its amount such that it is virtually impossible to assess damages, this will generally permit only an award of nominal damages.
Lim Chong Poon v Chiang Sing Jeong	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2020] SGCA 27	Singapore	Cited for the principle that where it is clear that substantial loss has been incurred, the fact that an assessment is difficult because of the nature of the loss is no reason for awarding no damages or merely nominal damages.
Recovery Vehicle 1 Pte Ltd v Industries Chimiques Du Senegal and another appeal and another matter	N/A	Yes	[2021] 1 SLR 342	Singapore	Cited for the doctrine of approbation and reprobation bars a claimant from running a case on appeal that is inconsistent with its case in the proceedings below, if that claimant had in fact obtained some benefit from its chosen course in the proceedings below.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Civil Law Act 1909	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Biopolis 3
Net Lettable Area
Temporary Occupation Permit
Combined Delay
Holding Costs
Site Staff Costs
Loss of Chance
Multi-Year Model
Single-Year Model
Stabilised Occupancy
Pre-commitment Tenants

15.2 Keywords

construction delay
damages
loss of chance
net rental revenue
holding costs
building contractor
property developer

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Damages	85
Contract Law	80
Construction Law	75
Building and Construction Law	70
Measure of Damages	60
Causation	60
Remoteness of damage	60

16. Subjects

Construction Dispute
Contract Law
Damages Assessment