United Integrated Services Pte Ltd v Civil Tech Pte Ltd and another  SGHC 32
Decision Date: 14 Feb 2019
This case pertains to an application to the High Court by United Integrated Services Pte Ltd (“UIS”) to stay the enforcement of an adjudication determination obtained by Civil Tech Pte Ltd (“Civil Tech”) against UIS.
It deals with the parties’ rights in the situation when there are two existing adjudication determinations – an earlier determination in which a sum was awarded and a subsequent determination in which no amounts were awarded.
Can the claimant choose to enforce the earlier determination and ignore the subsequent adjudication? Read on to find out.
UIS was the main contractor in a factory development project. It had engaged Civil Tech to be its’ main sub-contractor in the project.
Civil Tech referred its payment claim no 6 (“PC6”) to adjudication under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (“SOPA”). It succeeded and on 23 October 2018, obtained an adjudication determination for $1,369,987.02 plus interest and costs in its favour. (“the First AD”)
On 19 November 2018, Civil Tech was granted leave by the High Court to enforce the First AD.
Civil Tech had also submitted its payment claim no 7 (“PC7”) to adjudication. The adjudication determination, which was issued on 23 November 2018 (“the Second AD”) , was not in Civil Tech’s favour. The adjudicated amount was a negative sum of $1,176,050.67. This was due to the liquidated damages and back-charges, which had not been raised or considered in the first adjudication.
After the Second AD was issued; UIS applied to the High Court to stay the enforcement of the First AD.
Glaziers Engineering Pte Ltd v WCS Engineering Construction Pte Ltd  SGCA 66
Glaziers Engineering Pte Ltd v WCS Engineering Construction Pte Ltd  SGCA 66 is the fourth Court of Appeal decision rendered in 2018. It concerned an application to set aside an adjudication determination issued under the SOP Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap. 30B) (“SOPA”) for an alleged breach of natural justice by the adjudicator.
In this post, we highlight one aspect of the Court of Appeal’s decision which will have important practical significance to claimant’s and respondent’s in the SOPA adjudication process. This is the standard of persuasion that should be applied by an adjudicator and which has to be met by the parties in order to succeed in their respective claims or set-offs.
We are pleased to announce that our firm has recently obtained its SmartLawCertification from the Law Society of Singapore in recognition of our adoption of technology to improve productivity.
We are firm believers in the power of technology and are constantly exploring applications that could lead to improvements in performance; productivity and competitiveness.
Tan Joo Seng