FLUX SOLUTIONS PTE LTD v WONG BENG CHEE (HUANG BINGCI)

Facts

The defendant, Mr Wong, engaged the claimant, Flux Solutions Pte Ltd, to carry out waterproofing works at two adjacent houses on Pasir Ris Road that had already been built by another contractor. After a site survey in early March 2021 by the claimant's Mr Chi, the scope was set out in two quotations with a total contract sum of $62,060, covering six areas: reinforced concrete ledges, the rooftop balcony, the ground level walkways, the swimming pool, a metal roof and skylight areas. Mr Wong paid a deposit of $24,824.

The claimant said it finished the works in March 2022 and sued in Magistrate's Court Originating Claim No 2919 of 2023 for the balance of $37,236. Mr Wong accepted that the ledge, metal roof and skylight works were done satisfactorily, but said the rooftop balcony, walkway and pool works were not completed, pointing to water leaks in the houses between May 2022 and December 2022. He counterclaimed close to $240,000 for breach of contract, negligent workmanship, negligent advice and negligent misrepresentation. The counterclaim was tried on liability only at this stage.

Issues

1. Whether the claimant proved that it completed all the waterproofing works within the contractual scope.
2. Whether the defendant proved loss caused by any breach of the quotations.
3. Whether the counterclaims for negligent workmanship, negligent advice and negligent misrepresentation were made out.

Holding

The court dismissed both the claimant's claim and the defendant's counterclaim. The claimant was not entitled to the unpaid balance of $37,236 but could keep the $24,824 deposit as payment for the works it did complete. The parties were to file costs submissions within 14 days.

Reasoning

The court held that the work required was limited to the six areas in the quotations, which expressly treated anything else as a variation, so Mr Wong could not insist on works at toilets, external walls, a third-level balcony or a sink, or on pool water tests. There was an implied term that the work would be done with reasonable skill and care.

The burden was on the claimant to prove completion. Its evidence showed only that it applied the specified membrane in the pool. Mr Chi's affidavits said nothing useful about the balcony or walkway works and described a nano-treatment layer that was not in the quotations and not shown to be an agreed variation. The photographs were not explained, Mr Wong had raised concerns after the completion message, and his later contractor did not concede completion. Because the quotations were lump sum contracts and there was no evidence of the value of each area, the completed works could not be valued, so the balance claim failed; since Mr Wong did not seek the deposit back, the claimant kept it.

The failure to complete was a breach, but Mr Wong proved no loss: he had not paid the balance, and he did not show that the cracks, seepage and stains were caused by the missing works. The walkway water ingress was structural, arising from the difference in elevation. The negligent workmanship claim had no factual basis. On negligent advice, applying Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100, a duty existed but was not breached, as no problems in the other areas were shown at the time of the survey and other contractors had not identified any either. The alleged representation was not proved, since Mr Chi's remark about comprehensive waterproofing concerned the balcony, and in any event it was not shown to be false.

From the judgment