E-Tech Building Services Pte. Ltd. v Foreign Domestic Worker Association for Social Support and Training (FAST)

E-Tech Building Services Pte Ltd, a building contractor, and the Foreign Domestic Worker Association for Social Support and Training (FAST), a non-profit charity, negotiated in 2019 for E-Tech to renovate a property at 3 Chin Cheng Avenue and run a hub for foreign domestic workers there, but never reached a binding agreement. E-Tech nonetheless began works around March 2020. After the COVID-19 outbreak, the Singapore Land Authority required the property to be used as a Migrant Workers Housing Facility, and E-Tech's works lasted about seven months from March 2020, a period spanning the Circuit Breaker. Migrant workers began moving in on 29 April 2020.

In Suit No 367 of 2022 E-Tech claimed payment. FAST accepted that by its conduct it had agreed to pay, so the trial concerned the amount. E-Tech claimed $798,643.85 for builder's works, a 15% fee of $119,796.58 for profit, attendance and project management, $182,936.00 for non-builder's items, GST, and $177,851.08 for management costs, which FAST admitted. FAST disputed many items for lack of documentary proof, especially labour costs unsupported by attendance records, and objected to the 15% fee.

1. Whether E-Tech's claim should be assessed as a contractual quantum meruit for a reasonable sum.
2. Which disputed items of builder's works were proven and reasonable.
3. Whether E-Tech was entitled to a 15% fee for profit and attendance.
4. How much of the claim for non-builder's items was supported by evidence.

The agreement to pay did not fix the price, so the claim was treated as a contractual quantum meruit with an implied term for a reasonable sum, following Rabiah Bee bte Mohamed Ibrahim v Salem Ibrahim [2007] 2 SLR(R) 655.

On builder's works, the court went item by item. Labour claims were generally allowed where photographs and the circumstances showed the work was done by E-Tech, the work fell outside sub-contractors' scope, and the estimate was modest and unchallenged; the urgency and the Circuit Breaker partly explained the lack of records. Claims for extra labour on top of sub-contractors already billed, a guardhouse electrical claim without particulars, and large labour claims of $7,200 and $19,200 without a granular breakdown were disallowed. Sums for the fire alarm system, the fire safety submission, plumbing works and a switchboard tranche were allowed on quotations and invoices showing the amounts due, though E-Tech's records were described as in shambles and its failure to call sub-contractors would count in costs.

On the 15% fee, the court held there is no blanket rule requiring prior agreement for profit and attendance, but this was in substance a profit markup on sub-contractors E-Tech itself appointed, and in part on labour that already included profit. The public sector standard conditions it relied on applied only to specified disruption events, and its expert's justification that 15% was a round figure was threadbare, so E-Tech did not prove a reasonable margin.

Non-builder's items were allowed only to the extent of invoices produced, and the canteen furniture claim failed entirely.

The High Court allowed the claim in part. It awarded E-Tech $820,908.12 for builder's works and $63,903.64 for non-builder's works (both inclusive of GST) and $177,851.08 for management costs, a global award of $1,062,662.84, with interest at 5.33% per annum as the parties consented. The claim for the 15% fee was dismissed.