ADJUCATION REVIEW AND SOME OTHER ISSUES
The Singapore High Court recently addressed the scope of adjudication review under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004, as well as some other issues, in Zhao Yang Geotechnic Pte Ltd v China Communications Construction Company Ltd (Singapore Branch) [2026] SGHC 82.
Background. The case arose from an adjudication brought by the subcontractor, Zhao Yang Geotechnic Pte Ltd (the “Applicant”), against China Communications Construction Company Ltd (Singapore Branch) (the “Respondent”) (Judgment [2], [4]).
The Applicant served a payment claim claiming for $7,210,109.37 (inclusive of GST), and the Respondent responded with a payment response where the response amount was nil (Judgment [3]).
Dissatisfied, the Applicant lodged an adjudication application, resulting in an adjudication determination determining that the Respondent should pay $3,541,361.21 (inclusive of GST) to the Applicant (Judgment [4]).
The Respondent then lodged an adjudication review. Importantly, the Applicant did not make its own review application. The Applicant instead took the position in the adjudication review that the adjudicator was entitled to review the entire adjudication determination: i.e., not limited to only the issues identified by the review applicant (Judgment [5]).
After inviting submissions from the parties, the Review Adjudicators (a panel of three) determined that due to the changes effected by the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment (Amendment) Act 2018 (Act 47 of 2018) (“2018 Amendment”), “… both parties would now need to lodge their own review applications, otherwise only issues identified by the review applicant would be reviewed”. The Review Adjudicators then only reviewed the issues identified by the review applicant, i.e., the Respondent, and reduced the adjudicated amount to nil (Judgment [8]).
Broad or narrow interpretation. That was the key issue before the High Court. As set out in Judgment [1], it was “whether a review adjudicator or panel is entitled to review the entire adjudication determination (“Broad Interpretation”) or only those issues identified by a review applicant (ie, the party making the review application) (“Narrow Interpretation”)”.
The Broad Interpretation was set out in Ang Cheng Guan Construction Pte Ltd v Corporate Residence Pte Ltd [2017] 3 SLR 988 (“Ang Cheng Guan”). However, due to the 2018 Amendment, there arose an issue as to whether Ang Cheng Guan was superseded by the 2018 Amendment such that the Narrow Interpretation represented the current law.
Broad Interpretation. After careful analysis, the High Court held that the Broad Interpretation remains the current law.
In the course of the analysis:
The High Court took the view that “[a]n aggrieved party would still be incentivised to file its review application instead of simply waiting for the other side to do so, as waiting may risk missing the opportunity to review the adjudication determination completely” (Judgment [32]).
The High Court was of the view that when it came to the question of application fees, a tribunal is entitled to take into account the fees paid by the review applicant when awarding costs, which would address the issue of whether a review respondent would benefit from a “free-ride” on the application fees that were paid by the review applicant (Judgment [32]).
The High Court further took the view that there was “no ambush” if a review respondent raises new issues, as “[i]f the law is clear that the review adjudicator or panel is entitled to review the entire adjudication determination, then there is simply no “ambush” as the review applicant would expect the other party’s issues to be open for review as well” (Judgment [33]).
In short, as set out in Judgment [42], the High Court held that “although it is clear that in amending s 18(2), Parliament intended to allow both parties to file review applications, the extraneous material offers limited insight into whether Parliament further intended that both parties must file their own review applications. In any event, I do not need to conduct this exercise as the wording of s 18(2) in the SOPA 2020 is sufficiently clear. The Respondent cannot refer to extraneous material to override the provision’s textual meaning. The extraneous material referred to is also insufficient to justify a departure from the textual meaning of s 18(2) of the SOPA 2020”.
Other points. However, the Judgment is not limited to addressing the Broad Interpretation vs. Narrow Interpretation issue. Other key issues addressed by the High Court include:
Finding that misdirection in a point of law which breaches a mandatory provision is a ground for setting aside an adjudication review determination (Judgment [22] – [24]). This is because, as set out in Judgment [23], such a misdirection “invalidates the review adjudicator or panel’s jurisdiction”.
Addressing the test for determining whether an adjudication review determination should be remitted back to the review adjudicator or panel. The High Court agreed with the parties at Judgment [47] that it is appropriate to derive the principles from arbitration jurisprudence and, in particular, the case of Vietnam Oil and Gas Group v Joint Stock Company (Power Machines – ZTL, LMZ, Electrosila Energomachexport) [2025] 2 SLR 273. On the facts of the case, the High Court found ordered that the review determination be remitted back to the Review Adjudicators for a review of the issues identified by the Applicant (Judgment [49] – [54]).
Concluding observations. With this Judgment, there is now clarity as to the scope of an adjudication review. While a review applicant may seek to review an adjudication determination on limited grounds, the jurisdiction of the review adjudicator (or panel) is not so limited, and the review respondent is entitled to review the entire adjudication determination.
Of course, it is important to bear in mind that principles of natural justice remain in play. Just because a review respondent (who has not filed an adjudication review application) is entitled to challenge the entire adjudication determination does not mean that the review respondent is therefore, automatically, entitled to raise new arguments and evidence without regard to due process.
This publication is not intended to be, nor should it be taken as, legal advice; it is not a substitute for specific legal advice for specific circumstances. You should not take, nor refrain from taking, actions based on this publication.