Hiap Seng v Hock Heng: SOPA, Payment Response Validity & Estoppel in Construction Dispute
In Hiap Seng Building Construction Pte Ltd v Hock Heng Seng Contractor Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore addressed an application to set aside an adjudication determination under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (SOPA). The key issues were the validity of a payment response served before the deemed service date of the payment claim, whether the applicant was estopped from challenging the determination based on the invalidity of the payment response, and whether the adjudicator acted ultra vires in awarding a higher amount than claimed. The court allowed the setting aside application in part, reducing the adjudicated amount.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Setting aside application allowed in part.
1.3 Case Type
Building and Construction Law
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court case regarding the validity of a payment response under SOPA and whether estoppel applies. The court allowed the setting aside application in part.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hiap Seng Building Construction Pte Ltd | Applicant | Corporation | Setting aside application allowed in part | Partial | |
| Hock Heng Seng Contractor Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Adjudicated Amount Reduced | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Wong Li Kok, Alex | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The applicant was the main contractor for a project to build a residential apartment.
- The respondent was engaged as the sub-contractor for the Project.
- The respondent served its Payment Claim No. 15 on the applicant on 5 July 2023.
- The applicant submitted a Payment Response to the respondent on 27 July 2023.
- The respondent issued a tax invoice dated 1 August 2023 for S$16,861.61.
- The applicant issued final accounts for the Sub-contract and the Project on 7 August 2023.
- The respondent commenced the Adjudication against the applicant on 8 September 2023.
5. Formal Citations
- Hiap Seng Building Construction Pte Ltd v Hock Heng Seng Contractor Pte Ltd, Originating Application No 1176 of 2023, [2024] SGHC 50
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Payment Claim No. 15 served by the respondent on the applicant. | |
| Applicant submitted a Payment Response to the respondent. | |
| Respondent issued a tax invoice to the applicant. | |
| Applicant issued final accounts for the Sub-contract and the Project to the respondent. | |
| Respondent commenced the Adjudication against the applicant. | |
| Applicant filed its adjudication response. | |
| Adjudication Determination issued. | |
| Order of Court was made granting the respondent leave to enforce the Determination. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Judgment date. |
7. Legal Issues
- Validity of Payment Response under SOPA
- Outcome: The court held that the Payment Response submitted before the deemed date of service of the Payment Claim was invalid.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2023] SGHC 175
- Estoppel
- Outcome: The court held that the applicant was estopped from challenging the Determination based on the invalidity of the Payment Response.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2018] 1 SLR 317
- Adjudicator's Jurisdiction
- Outcome: The court held that the Adjudicator acted ultra vires in awarding a higher amount than that stated in the Payment Response.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Related Cases:
- [2017] 4 SLR 359
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside of Adjudication Determination
- Order to prevent enforcement of the Adjudication Determination
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Construction Law
- Commercial Litigation
- Arbitration
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Audi Construction Pte Ltd v Kian Hiap Construction Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 317 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of estoppel in the SOPA context and the duty to speak. |
| Rong Shun Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd v CP Ong Construction Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2017] 4 SLR 359 | Singapore | Cited regarding the scope of the adjudicator’s jurisdiction and the principle of fair notice. |
| Asia Grand Pte Ltd v A I Associates Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 175 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of sections 10(2)(a)(ii) and 10(3)(b) of the SOPA and the effect of these sections. |
| Grouteam Pte Ltd v UES Holdings Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 5 SLR 1011 | Singapore | Cited for the distinction between threshold jurisdiction and substantive jurisdiction of an adjudicator. |
| Far East Square Pte Ltd v Yau Lee Construction (Singapore) Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 189 | Singapore | Cited for examples of payment claims falling outside the purview of SOPA from the outset. |
| Libra Building Construction Pte Ltd v Emergent Engineering Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 481 | Singapore | Cited for the legislative purpose of SOPA to effect payment through an expeditious process that requires strict adherence to timelines. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 36 rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2021 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004 | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004 s 27 | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004 s 11(1)(b) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004 s 10(3)(b) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004 s 10(2)(a)(ii) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004 s 12(1) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004 s 13(3)(a) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004 s 16(3) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004 s 27(6)(d) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004 s 27(6)(e) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004 s 17(4)(c) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004 s 17(4)(d) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004 s 17(4)(h) | Singapore |
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004 s 27(8)(a) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Payment Claim
- Payment Response
- Adjudication
- Adjudication Determination
- SOPA
- Estoppel
- Ultra Vires
- Sub-contract
- Adjudicated Amount
15.2 Keywords
- SOPA
- Payment Response
- Estoppel
- Adjudication
- Construction Law
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act | 98 |
| Construction Law | 95 |
| Building and Construction Contracts | 90 |
| Estoppel | 60 |
| Contract Law | 50 |
| Arbitration | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Building and Construction Law
- Security of Payment
- Adjudication
- Estoppel