CRIMSIGN GRAPHICS PTE LTD v AMXON CONSTRUCTORS PTE. LTD.

Facts

Crimsign Graphics Pte Ltd (the Claimant) supplied signage for MRT stations and tunnels to Amxon Constructors Pte. Ltd. (the Defendant) under three contracts: one dated 1 December 2017 for Woodlands Station, one dated 7 August 2019 for Springleaf Station and one dated 25 August 2021 for Havelock Station. The Defendant endorsed documents indicating completion, including Settlement of Final Accounts and Payment Certificates, but then refused to pay the outstanding balance.

The Claimant sued in District Court Originating Claim No 1085 of 2024 for $12,715.16 in legal costs from adjudication proceedings on the Woodlands Contract (SOP/AA 209/2022), $136,262.85 under the Springleaf Contract and $15,301 under the Havelock Contract. The Defendant raised a set-off and counterclaimed for alleged breaches: failure to provide as-built drawings and warranties under all three contracts and operations and maintenance manuals under the Springleaf and Havelock contracts, and $17,000 for alleged incomplete work and unrectified defects under the Springleaf Contract.

Issues

1. Whether the Claimant was entitled to the sums claimed under the three contracts, including its adjudication costs
2. Whether the Defendant's agreement to the final account value was conditional on outstanding works
3. Whether the Defendant proved loss from the alleged failure to provide as-built drawings, warranties and manuals
4. Whether the Defendant proved unrectified defects under the Springleaf Contract after the final account

Holding

The court granted the Claimant's claim and allowed the Defendant's counterclaim in part, awarding it only $840.50 for the Category 2 defects relating to the mega signages; the rest of the counterclaim was dismissed. The Claimant was found entitled to $164,279.01, less $4,583.35 already paid, and after deducting the $840.50 the Defendant was ordered to pay the Claimant $158,855.16. Interest and costs were left to be argued.

Reasoning

Under s 30(4) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004, a successful party may include adjudication costs in a court claim. The Claimant proved the costs were incurred and the Defendant did not challenge their reasonableness; the timesheet entries appeared to relate to the Woodlands work. For Springleaf and Havelock, the Defendant accepted the final value of $374,500 in the Settlement of Final Account dated 22 November 2021 and had certified $15,301, so the balances were due subject to the set-off and counterclaim.

The court rejected the argument that a statement in the 22 Nov 2021 Final Account about completing outstanding and defect works made the agreed value conditional. It meant only that the Claimant still had to carry out works such as defects rectification.

The counterclaim for drawings, warranties and manuals failed. The percentages the Defendant used had no contractual basis and appeared arbitrary, and nothing supported the claimed standard market practice. Even if there was a technical breach over drawings and warranties, the Defendant had to prove its loss and did not. The Springleaf and Havelock contracts made manuals optional, signage did not need operating or maintaining, and the Defendant could not show it incurred any cost preparing them.

On defects, the final account showed work was completed by around November 2021, so the question was whether defects remained afterwards. The Category 1 defects rested only on an email from May 2021. For the Category 2 mega signages, a letter of 12 May 2022 showed the Claimant was notified, and the Defendant proved $840.50 in replacement costs, but not the claimed labour and equipment costs, for which it produced no documents.

From the judgment