 Introduction
What is a downstream sub-contractor’s recourse if the upstream main contractor gives only oral instructions for variation works although the subcontract requires written instructions? What are the implications to a downstream sub-contractor if it decides to carry out variation works based only on the main contractor’s oral instructions? Will it have a right to claim for additional payment? These are frequently encountered issues in the construction arena, and they arose for the High Court’s consideration in this case. 21/11/2020
SECTION 17 (2A) OF THE SOP ACT: ARE CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES EXCLUDED FROM AN ADJUDICATOR’S JURISDICTION? Range Construction Pte Ltd v Goldbell Engineering Pte Ltd [2020] SGHC 1919 (“Range Construction”) Decision Date: 10 Sept 2020 INTRODUCTION Range Construction Pte Ltd (“RC”) was Goldbell Engineering Pte Ltd’s (“GE”) contractor. RC obtained an adjudication determination in its favour against GE. However, RC was dissatisfied with the adjudicator’s decision to allow GE’s claim for liquidated damages of $852,000.00. RC applied to the High Court (“HC”) set aside the adjudication determination. One of the grounds relied on by RC was that the adjudicator did not have the power to determine GC’s claim for liquidated damages. The HC disagreed with RC’s contention and dismissed the application. In doing so the HC briefly commented on Section 17 (2A) of the SOP Act. This appears to be the first reported observations on Section 17 (2A) which came into effect on 15 December 2019. We will discuss this aspect of the HC’s decision in this post.  Shimizu Corporation v Stargood Construction Pte Ltd [2020] SGCA 3 Introduction
This is a Court of Appeal decision rendered in 2020 concerning an application to set aside two adjudication determinations relating to the submission of payment claims following the termination of a sub-contract. This decision touches on the “dual railroad track system” for making payment claims which has been accepted and understood by the industry as a norm since the Singapore High Court’s decision in Tienrui Design & Construction Pte Ltd v G & Y Trading and Manufacturing Pte Ltd [2015] 5 SLR 852 (“Tienrui”) in 2015. After this decision, do parties have separate rights under contract and statute to make payment claims? What impact will this have on contract negotiations for main and subcontractors alike? This decision by the apex court will clarify matters and provide clearer guidance for construction contracts. |
3/9/2021