Tid Plus Design Pte Ltd v Kwek Seng Wee John: Renovation Contract Dispute over Completion of Wet Works
In Tid Plus Design Pte Ltd v Kwek Seng Wee John, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore heard an application by Tid Plus Design Pte Ltd for leave to appeal against a decision of the Magistrate Court regarding a renovation contract dispute. The dispute arose from a renovation contract signed in August 2021, where Kwek Seng Wee John hired Tid Plus Design Pte Ltd to renovate his house. The court dismissed the application, finding no error in the District Judge's decision that the wet works were not completed due to significant defects, and therefore, Kwek Seng Wee John was not in breach of contract for withholding payment.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court case involving Tid Plus Design and Kwek Seng Wee John, concerning a renovation contract dispute and the definition of 'completion' of wet works.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tid Plus Design Pte Ltd | Applicant | Corporation | Application dismissed | Lost | |
| Kwek Seng Wee John | Respondent | Individual | Application dismissed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Mohamed Faizal | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Leow Zhi Wei Nicholas | Netto & Magin LLC |
| Sim Jin Simm Alina | Axis Law Corporation |
4. Facts
- The applicant, Tid Plus Design Pte Ltd, was hired by the respondent to renovate his house.
- The renovation contract was signed in August 2021 for $82,051.80.
- The contract stipulated staged payments, including 45% upon completion of wet works.
- The parties later agreed to vary the terms such that the 45% payment would be due upon completion of carpentry works.
- The respondent observed substandard workmanship and delays.
- The respondent moved into the property on 18 September 2021, having paid approximately 74.8% of the contract price.
- There remained outstanding defects, including water leakage in the bathrooms.
5. Formal Citations
- Tid Plus Design Pte Ltd v Kwek Seng Wee John, Originating Application No 381 of 2024, [2024] SGHC 187
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Initial contract prepared. | |
| Renovation contract signed. | |
| Respondent and family moved into the property. | |
| District Judge refused leave to appeal. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that the applicant was in breach of contract for failing to complete the wet works.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to complete wet works
- Improper termination
- Related Cases:
- [2024] SGMC 22
- Interpretation of Contractual Terms
- Outcome: The court defined 'completion' as requiring substantial performance, and clarified the scope of 'wet works'.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Definition of completion
- Scope of wet works
- Leave to Appeal
- Outcome: The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Prima facie case of error
- Question of general principle
- Question of importance
- Related Cases:
- [1997] 2 SLR(R) 862
- [2023] SGHC 193
- [2022] SGHC(A) 16
- [2022] SGHC 313
- [2022] 4 SLR 513
- [1989] 1 SLR(R) 588
- [2010] SGHC 302
- [2014] 4 SLR 600
- [2023] SGHC 355
- [2004] 3 SLR(R) 25
- [2011] 3 SLR 859
- [2008] SGHC 199
- [1990] 1 SLR(R) 198
- [2001] 2 SLR(R) 18
- [2024] SGCA 17
8. Remedies Sought
- Leave to appeal against the District Judge’s decision
- Payment of the unpaid balance of the Contract Price of $20,651.80
- Costs of rectifying the property
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Construction Disputes
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Construction
- Interior Design
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tid Plus Design Pte Ltd v Kwek Seng Wee John | Magistrate Court | Yes | [2024] SGMC 22 | Singapore | Sets out the facts of the case in detail. |
| Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong and another | N/A | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR(R) 862 | Singapore | Cited for the principles to consider when seeking leave to appeal. |
| Hon G v Tan Pei Li | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 193 | Singapore | Cited for the key principles relating to a prima facie case of error. |
| Rodeo Power Pte Ltd and others v Tong Seak Kan and another | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC(A) 16 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a prima facie case of error must be one of law and not of fact. |
| Zhou Wenjing v Shun Heng Credit Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 313 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there must be a likelihood of substantial injustice if permission is not granted. |
| Bellingham, Alex v Reed, Michael | N/A | Yes | [2022] 4 SLR 513 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the applicant must show something more than just his disagreement with the court’s decision. |
| Anthony s/o Savarimiuthu v Soh Chuan Tin | N/A | Yes | [1989] 1 SLR(R) 588 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that leave should be granted where the denial may conceivably result in a miscarriage of justice. |
| Portcullis Escrow Pte Ltd v Astrata (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another | High Court | Yes | [2010] SGHC 302 | Singapore | Cited for the considerations in determining whether a question of general principle and/or a question of importance arises. |
| Public Prosecutor v Teo Chu Ha | N/A | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 600 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the question must contain the necessary normative force for it to be a question of law. |
| Soh Hoo Khoon Peng v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2906 | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 355 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the determination of the question has broader implications than merely on the parties before the court. |
| Essar Steel Ltd v Bayerische Landesbank and others | N/A | Yes | [2004] 3 SLR(R) 25 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that one should ask whether the answer provided can be meaningfully applied in other cases. |
| Mah Kiat Seng v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 859 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there should be no general principle for any category of questions to automatically be given a right of appeal. |
| Ong Boon Kheng v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2008] SGHC 199 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it takes only a little ingenuity to re-cast what is a straightforward application of principles of law into an apparent legal conundrum. |
| Abdul Salam bin Mohamed Salleh v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [1990] 1 SLR(R) 198 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the absence of a judicial interpretation of any particular provision per se would not be a reason to allow an application for the matter to be heard by a higher tribunal. |
| Pandian Marimuthu v Guan Leong Construction Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 18 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that what suffices such that a court should grant leave to appeal would ultimately turn on where the equities would lie on the specific facts and circumstances before it. |
| Xu Yuanchen v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2024] SGCA 17 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that parties may have a penchant to overstate the legal implications of discrete decisions or to characterise factual issues as encompassing broader questions of law and principle. |
| Bolton v Mahadeva | N/A | Yes | [1972] 1 WLR 1009 | N/A | Considers the nature of the defect and the proportion of the rectification costs out of the contract price, in determining whether there was substantial performance |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Renovation contract
- Wet works
- Carpentry works
- Completion
- Substantial performance
- Staged payments
- Defects
- Waterproofing
- Leave to appeal
15.2 Keywords
- renovation
- contract
- wet works
- completion
- defects
- appeal
- Singapore
- construction law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Renovation Contracts | 95 |
| Construction Law | 90 |
| Building and Construction Contracts | 80 |
| Breach of Contract | 70 |
| Contractual terms | 60 |
| Remedies | 50 |
| Litigation | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Building and Construction Contracts
- Renovation Contracts
- Civil Procedure
- Appeals