HIAP SENG BUILDING CONSTRUCTION PTE LTD v HOCK HENG SENG CONTRACTOR PTE LTD

[2024] SGHC 50 High Court (General Division) 27 February 2024 • HC/OA 1176/2023 • 26 min read
6 cases cited Cited by 1 case

Catchwords

Practice Areas

Judges (1)

Counsel (6)

Parties (2)

Case Significance

Hiap Seng Building Construction Pte Ltd v Hock Heng Seng Contractor Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 50 was decided in the General Division of the High Court on 27 February 2024, with grounds of decision delivered by Wong Li Kok, Alex JC following hearings on 13 December 2023 and 5 January 2024. In Originating Application No 1176 of 2023, the applicant, Hiap Seng Building Construction Pte Ltd, applied under section 27 of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004 (read with Order 36 rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2021) to set aside an Adjudication Determination dated 18 October 2023, and by extension the Order of Court dated 6 November 2023 granting the respondent leave to enforce the Determination. The key issue, as framed by Wong Li Kok, Alex JC, was whether a defective payment response should lead to the setting aside of an adjudication determination under the Act. The catchwords indicate the case also addressed the date of service of a payment response under section 11(1)(b) of the Act, whether the adjudication determination was severable, and a promissory estoppel argument over whether the contractor was estopped from objecting that it had served an invalid payment response because it failed to speak up earlier. The applicant was represented by counsel from Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP including Benny Santoso and Sim Chee Siong, and the respondent by Winston Quek & Company.

Summary

Hiap Seng Building Construction Pte Ltd, the main contractor, applied to the General Division of the High Court under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004 to set aside an adjudication determination obtained by its sub-contractor, Hock Heng Seng Contractor Pte Ltd, and the related order granting leave to enforce it. The key issues were whether a defective payment response should lead to setting aside the determination, whether the party issuing the defective response was estopped from relying on it, and whether the determination was severable. Wong Li Kok, Alex JC allowed the application in part, reducing the adjudicated amount from S$17,019.19 to S$16,861.60 with the excess of S$157.59 released to the applicant, and made no order as to costs.

What was the main issue in Hiap Seng Building Construction v Hock Heng Seng Contractor [2024] SGHC 50?

The main issue in [2024] SGHC 50 was whether a defective payment response should lead to the setting aside of an adjudication determination under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004. Wong Li Kok, Alex JC delivered the grounds of decision on 27 February 2024.

What did [2024] SGHC 50 say about estoppel and payment responses?

Per the catchwords, [2024] SGHC 50 considered a promissory estoppel argument over whether the contractor was estopped from objecting that it had served an invalid payment response, on the basis that it had failed to speak up about the defect earlier in the adjudication process.

Under what provision was the application in [2024] SGHC 50 brought?

The application in Hiap Seng Building Construction Pte Ltd v Hock Heng Seng Contractor Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 50 was brought under section 27 of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004, read with Order 36 rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2021.

Statutes Cited

Cases Cited (6)

SG (1)
[2023] SGHC 175
SLR (5)
[2016] 1 SLR 481 [2016] 5 SLR 1011 [2017] 4 SLR 359 [2018] 1 SLR 317 [2019] 2 SLR 189

Cited By (1)

Referenced in

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.

Read on eLitigation

Source: eLitigation ([2024] SGHC 50)