Calpeda Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Chew Construction & Plumbing Pte. Ltd.

Chew Construction & Plumbing Pte Ltd engaged Calpeda Asia Pacific Pte Ltd to supply and install pumps on five building projects: Punggol NorthShore C1 & C2 (with two variation orders), How Sun Road, HDB C39, Sembawang and The Terrace@Punggol. In Suit No 913 of 2021 Calpeda claimed $683,147.92 in unpaid invoices and retention sums across the five projects.

Chew Construction counterclaimed $683,664.73. It said Calpeda had installed pumps that were unfit for purpose and abandoned the C1&C2 project without doing maintenance; that it had to pay back charges of $169,400 and replastering costs of $442,146.98 because Calpeda hacked through riser floors; that Calpeda had committed fraud on HDB inspectors by moving a pump between blocks for inspection, warranting exemplary damages; that it paid more to third parties to finish work on How Sun and C39; that the Sembawang retention sum was not yet due when the suit began; and that leakages from Calpeda's pumps at Terrace caused it $25,492.75 in damage.

1. Whether the C1&C2 pumps were unfit for purpose and whether Calpeda abandoned the project
2. Whether Calpeda was liable for the riser hacking costs and for exemplary damages for alleged fraud
3. Whether Chew Construction could recover the extra costs of third parties on How Sun and C39
4. Whether the Sembawang retention sum was due when the suit was filed, and whether the Terrace counterclaim was proved

On C1&C2, Chew Construction's own managing director accepted at trial that he did not say the pumps were unfit for purpose, no list of defects existed, and residents had moved in. Calpeda had not maintained the pumps, but only because Chew Construction ignored its three requests to be put in touch with the Town Council, so the breach was wholly attributable to Chew Construction.

Pipe sleeves and civil works were excluded from Calpeda's quotations, Calpeda was never told when the risers would be covered, and Chew Construction knew the risers would be drilled; nor did it prove it had actually incurred the costs. There was no legal basis for exemplary damages, any fraud would have been on HDB, and Chew Construction conceded the evidence, being hearsay, did not prove fraud.

For How Sun, Chew Construction bought the irrigation pump from another supplier without telling Calpeda, which remained willing to install it. For C39, the evidence showed the parties had replaced the original quotation with a reduced July 2021 Quotation.

Even on Chew Construction's longer defects period, the Sembawang retention sum fell due months before the suit, so the authority on causes of action not yet existing did not help. For Terrace, the retention was admitted due, and nothing linked the items in the debit note to Calpeda's work.

The court allowed Calpeda's claim for $683,147.92 with interest at 5.33% per annum from service of the writ to judgment, and dismissed Chew Construction's counterclaim in full. The $200,000 Chew Construction had paid into court was to be released to Calpeda towards the judgment sum, with costs to be agreed or submitted.