EE HUP CONSTRUCTION PTE LTD v CHINA JINGYE ENGINEERING CORPORATION LIMITED (SINGAPORE BRANCH) & Anor

[2025] SGHC(A) 3 High Court (Appellate Division) 11 February 2025 • AD/CA 61/2024 • 21 min read

10 cases cited (9 SG, 1 foreign)

Catchwords

Injunctions — Erinford Injunction Injunctions — Unconscionability Building and Construction Law — Performance Bond

Practice Areas

Injunctions Building and Construction Law

Judges (3)

Mavis Chionh Sze Chyi Delivered See Kee Oon Coram Tay Yong Kwang Coram

Counsel (13)

Essex LLC Firm Holborn Law LLC Firm K Ravi Law Corporation Firm WhiteFern LLC Firm Andy Yeo Yong Chuan Counsel Respondent Anparasan s/o Kamachi Counsel Respondent Aw Wei Keng Kelvin Counsel Respondent Liew Boon Kwee James Counsel Appellant Paul Leng Ji En Counsel Appellant S Magintharan Counsel Appellant Shanmugam Suppiah Counsel Appellant Sivakumar Suchetra Counsel Respondent Tang Jin Sheng Counsel Respondent

Parties (3)

China Jingye Engineering Corporation Limited (Singapore Branch) Respondent Ee Hup Construction Pte Ltd Appellant India International Insurance Pte Ltd Respondent

Summary

A subcontractor appealed against the refusal to injunct a main contractor's call on a $501,163.80 performance bond for a Thomson-East Coast Line MRT station project. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal, finding no unconscionability in the bond call for $499,864.67 and no basis for an Erinford injunction, and ordered $35,000 in costs.

Statutes Cited

Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B)

s 15(3)

Cases Cited (10)

SG (1)

[2024] SGHC 5

SLR (8)

[1990] 2 SLR(R) 520 [2003] 1 SLR(R) 394 [2012] 3 SLR 125 [2012] 3 SLR 352 [2013] 3 SLR 380 [2018] 1 SLR 317 [2020] 2 SLR 955 [2021] 3 SLR 571

UK (1)

[1974] 2 WLR 749

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.

Read on eLitigation

Source: eLitigation ([2025] SGHC(A) 3)