In the recent Court of Appeal decision of Bintai Kindenko Pte Ltd v Samsung C&T Corp  SGCA 39 (“Bintai v Samsung”), the Court of Appeal upheld the discharge of an interim injunction restraining the Main Contractor’s call on a performance bond.
In the recent High Court decision of China Railway No 5 Engineering Group Co Ltd Singapore Branch v Zhao Yang Geotechnic Pte Ltd  SGHC 130 (“China Railway v Zhao Yang”), Chan Seng Onn J addressed the issue of whether a sub-contractor can claim for recovery of performance bond proceeds in an adjudication under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (“SOP Act”).
In the recent Court of Appeal decision of Rakna Arakshaka Lanka Ltd v Avant Garde Maritime Services Pte Ltd  SGCA 33 (“RALL v AGMS”), the Court of Appeal set aside an arbitral award even though respondent did not appeal against the tribunal’s ruling on jurisdiction within the time limits prescribed by Art 16(3) Model Law.
In the important recent decision of Far East Square Pte Ltd v Yau Lee Construction (Singapore) Pte Ltd  SGCA 36 (“Far East”), the Singapore Court of Appeal (“SGCA”) decided that under the SIA Form of Contract, no further payment claims may be made under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (“SOPA”) after a valid final certificate has been issued. The SGCA also held that where the payment claim falls outside the ambit of SOPA, the respondent cannot be estopped from raising a jurisdictional objection even if no payment response was filed.
In Chuang Long Engineering Pte Ltd v Nan Huat Aluminium & Glass Pte Ltd  SGHC 55, the Singapore High Court held that materials which had been fabricated for the project, but had not been delivered nor installed, could be valued and claimed under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act pursuant to section 7(2)(c).
This short update touches briefly on the grounds for staying the enforcement of an adjudication determination, as well as a recent English decision where an adjudication decision was set aside on the basis of a properly arguable case of fraud.
An important concept in construction contracts is the concept of “practical completion”. In the recent England and Wales Court of Appeal (“EWCA”) decision of Mears Ltd v Costplan Services (South East) Ltd & Ors  EWCA Civ 502 (“Mears v Costplan”), the EWCA dealt with, inter alia, this very important concept.
Earlier this year, the Singapore High Court in MSP4GE Asia Pte Ltd and another v MSP Global Pte Ltd and others  SGHC 20 (“MSP4GE”) dealt with, inter alia, the law on dishonest assistance, and held that the law remains that as set out in the Privy Council decision of Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Philip Tan Kok Ming  2 AC 378 (“Royal Brunei Airlines”). There is now another decision on this issue of dishonest assistance in Group Seven Limited & Anor v Notable Services LLP & Anor  EWCA Civ 614 (“Group Seven”).
In the recent English Court of Appeal (“EWCA”) decision of Triple Point Technology, Inc v PTT Publish Company Ltd  EWCA Civ 230 (“Triple Point v PTT”), the EWCA dealt with, inter alia, the vexing of how should liquidated damages clauses be applied when the contract has been terminated.
Many construction disputes involve disputes over defects. It is important for the parties to bear in mind that the parties’ contract would affect what amounts to a defect, and the consequences flowing from such a defect.