Singapore High Court Clarifies The Scope of Adjudication Review

​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:

1. Whether a misdirection on a point of law constitutes a valid ground for setting aside an adjudication review determination.
2. Whether, under the SOP Act, review adjudicators may review the entire adjudication determination (Broad Interpretation) or are limited to issues raised by the review applicant (Narrow Interpretation).
3. If the Broad Interpretation applies, whether the ARD should be set aside entirely or remitted to the review adjudicators.

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.