H P Construction v Mega Team: Interpretation of SOPA s 13(3)(a) Adjudication Application Deadline
H P Construction & Engineering Pte Ltd appealed against the decision of the High Court in Originating Application No 867 of 2023, which dismissed their application to set aside an adjudication determination in favour of Mega Team Engineering Pte Ltd. The Appellate Division of the High Court, comprising Woo Bih Li JAD, Kannan Ramesh JAD, and See Kee Oon JAD, heard the appeal on 1 February 2024 and delivered its decision on 15 February 2024. The central legal issue was the interpretation of section 13(3)(a) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004 (SOPA) concerning the deadline for lodging an adjudication application. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the seven-day time limit excludes the day the entitlement arises, effectively giving the applicant eight days to lodge the application.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Appellate Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal on SOPA interpretation. Court held that the 7-day limit to file an adjudication application excludes the day entitlement arises, effectively allowing 8 days.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H P Construction & Engineering Pte Ltd | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | John Lim Kwang Meng, Ng Kai Ling |
| Mega Team Engineering Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Joseph Tay Weiwen, Swah Yeqin Shirin, Claire Tan Su Yin |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Woo Bih Li | Judge of the Appellate Division | Yes |
| Kannan Ramesh | Judge of the Appellate Division | No |
| See Kee Oon | Judge of the Appellate Division | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| John Lim Kwang Meng | LIMN Law Corporation |
| Ng Kai Ling | LIMN Law Corporation |
| Joseph Tay Weiwen | Shook Lin & Bok LLP |
| Swah Yeqin Shirin | Shook Lin & Bok LLP |
| Claire Tan Su Yin | Shook Lin & Bok LLP |
4. Facts
- HP engaged MT to supply labour under a sub-contract.
- MT submitted a payment claim to HP on 30 May 2023.
- HP failed to provide a payment response by 20 June 2023.
- The dispute settlement period was from 21 June to 27 June 2023.
- MT lodged an adjudication application on 6 July 2023.
- HP filed an application to set aside the adjudication determination on 28 August 2023.
- The Judge dismissed HP's application on 9 October 2023.
5. Formal Citations
- H P Construction & Engineering Pte Ltd v Mega Team Engineering Pte Ltd, Civil Appeal No 120 of 2023, [2024] SGHC(A) 5
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| MT submitted a payment claim to HP | |
| HP was to provide a payment response by this date but failed to do so | |
| Seven-day dispute settlement period began | |
| Dispute settlement period ended; no payment response from HP | |
| Public holiday | |
| MT lodged an adjudication application | |
| Adjudicator issued determination | |
| HP filed an application to set aside the adjudication determination | |
| HP’s application was dismissed by Justice Philip Jeyaretnam | |
| Judge’s grounds of decision issued | |
| Appeal heard | |
| Grounds of decision of the court delivered |
7. Legal Issues
- Interpretation of Section 13(3)(a) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004
- Outcome: The court held that the computation of the seven-day time limit under s 13(3)(a) of the SOPA excludes the day the entitlement arises.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Computation of time limits
- Exclusion of the first day in time calculation
- Related Cases:
- [2023] SGHC 298
- [2016] 4 SLR 645
- [2014] 3 SLR 264
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside of adjudication determination
9. Cause of Actions
- Failure to provide payment response
- Application to set aside adjudication determination
10. Practice Areas
- Construction Litigation
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H P Construction & Engineering Pte Ltd v Mega Team Engineering Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 298 | Singapore | Cited as the decision below being appealed against, regarding the interpretation of the SOPA. |
| Suresh s/o Suppiah v Jiang Guoliang | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 4 SLR 645 | Singapore | Cited for the common law rule on the computation of time and the historical development of section 50(a) of the Interpretation Act. |
| Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 850 | Singapore | Cited for the guidance on considering extraneous material in the interpretation of written law. |
| Attorney-General v Ting Choon Meng and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 373 | Singapore | Cited for the situations where a court may consider extraneous material. |
| Taisei Corp v Doo Ree Engineering & Trading Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2009] SGHC 156 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the parties adopted a computation similar to HP's interpretation, but the interpretation of s 13(3)(a) of the SOPA was not in issue. |
| Tienrui Design & Construction Pte Ltd v G & Y Trading and Manufacturing Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 852 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the court adopted a computation similar to HP's interpretation, but the interpretation of s 13(3)(a) of the SOPA was not in issue. |
| YTL Construction (S) Pte Ltd v Balanced Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2014] SGHC 142 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the point regarding the interpretation of s 13(3)(a) of the SOPA was not argued. |
| Mansource Interior Pte Ltd v Citiwall Safety Glass Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 264 | Singapore | Cited for the application of s 50(a) of the IA to the interpretation of timelines under the SOPA. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
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 13(3)(a) | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act 1965 | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act 1965 s 50 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Adjudication application
- Payment claim
- Payment response
- Dispute settlement period
- SOPA
- Section 13(3)(a)
- Interpretation Act
- Section 50(a)
- Computation of time
15.2 Keywords
- SOPA
- Adjudication
- Construction
- Payment
- Interpretation
- Timeline
16. Subjects
- Construction Dispute
- Adjudication
- Statutory Interpretation
17. Areas of Law
- Building and Construction Law
- Dispute Resolution
- Adjudication
- Statutory Interpretation
- Construction Law