 Zhao Yang Geotechnic Pte Ltd v China Communications Construction Company Ltd (Singapore Branch) [2026] SGHC 82
Introduction This case concerns an application by Zhao Yang Geotechnic Pte Ltd (“ZY”) to set aside an adjudication review determination (“ARD”) under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2020 (“SOP Act”). The central issue is the proper scope of an adjudication review under s 18(2) of the SOP Act — specifically, whether a review adjudicator is entitled to review the entire adjudication determination (“Broad Interpretation”) or only the issues raised by the review applicant (“Narrow Interpretation”). The judgment addresses a divide in prior adjudication practice following legislative amendments. The Relevant Facts China Communications Construction Company Ltd (Singapore Branch) (“CCCC”) engaged ZY as one of its subcontractor for works at Changi Airport Project. ZY submitted its Payment Claim No 62 for approximately $7.21 million to CCCC whose payment response was nil. ZY submitted the dispute to adjudication. The adjudicator awarded about $3.54 million to ZY. CCCC lodged an adjudication review application; ZY did not lodge one but sought to raise additional issues at the review application. The review adjudicators limited the review to CCCC’s issues, declined to consider ZY’s issues, and reduced the adjudicated amount to nil. ZY applied to the High Court to set aside the ARD. The Issues The Court considered three key issues:
The Court’s Decision The Court held that a misdirection on a point of law can be a valid ground for setting aside an adjudication review determination where it concerns jurisdiction or breach of a mandatory statutory provision. The Court adopted the Broad Interpretation, finding that s 18(2) of the SOP Act permits review of the entire adjudication determination, not merely the issues identified by the review applicant. This was because the language used in s 18 (2) namely, “review of the determination”, clearly referred to the whole determination and not part of a determination. The wordings in s 18 (2) was not altered in the 2018 amendments to the SOP Act which allowed both parties to apply for review. As such the amendments did not alter the scope of review under s 18 (2). In the circumstances, the Court found that the review adjudicators had misdirected themselves by adopting the Narrow Interpretation. However, instead of setting aside the ARD entirely, the Court remitted the matter back to the same review adjudicators to consider ZY’s issues. The Court was of the view that remittance was appropriate in this case because there was no evidence that he review adjudicators would act unfairly or in bad faith, and this would result in significant time and cost savings to the parties. Commentary The decision clarifies that under SOP Act, once an adjudication review is initiated, the entire determination is open for review, regardless of which party filed the review application. In practical terms this means that a respondent in a review application is also entitled to raise issues for consideration by the review adjudicators even if the respondent did not lodge a review application. This decision will certainly be welcomed by all involved parties because prior to this, it was uncertain whether the Broad or Narrow Interpretation was applicable in adjudication review applications.  Lunar New Year Greetings – The Year of the Fire Horse
As we welcome the Lunar New Year, we extend our warmest wishes to our clients, colleagues, and friends. We wish you good health, clarity of purpose, and continued success in the year ahead. The year ahead marks the Year of the Fire Horse, a rare combination in the lunar calendar traditionally associated with momentum, visibility, and decisive action. The construction industry is anticipated to be galloping at full capacity in the year ahead. Figures from the BCA indicate total demand projected at S$47 billion to S$53 billion driven by the Changi Airport Terminal 5 and Marina Bay Sands expansion. As we begin the new year, we remain grateful for the trust our clients place in us and for the professionalism of our colleagues and partners. In a year marked by momentum and heightened visibility, our commitment remains unchanged: to provide clear, rigorous, and commercially grounded legal advice, anchored in Singapore’s legal framework and responsive to regional and global developments. We look forward to working closely with you in the year ahead. We wish you a happy, healthy, and prosperous Lunar New Year. 马到成功 — may your endeavours meet with success.  Ser Kim Koi v GTMS Construction Pte Ltd [2022] SGHC (A) 34 (“Ser Kim Koi”) Concurrent Delay: A Tip of the Hat to Malmaison Introduction
This is one of the judgments in a prolonged dispute between the owner, his architect and main contractor in a project for the construction of three good class bungalows at Leedon Park. The disputes culminated in a lengthy sixty day trial where the contractor and the architect claimed against the owner for unpaid work. The owner counterclaimed against the contractor and the architect alleging that they had entered into an unlawful means conspiracy against him by, amongst others, improperly granting extensions of time, certifying as satisfactory deficient works that were not rectified, and certifying the project as being complete when it was not safe for occupation. The owner lost the case at the High Court and lodged an appeal to the Court of Appeal. The judgment of the Court of Appeal (CA) is the subject of this blogpost. The CA judgment is voluminous – 254 pages – and covers a broad spectrum of issues. For this blogpost, our focus lies on the CA’s remarks on concurrent delay. |
15/5/2026