In Chuang Long Engineering Pte Ltd v Nan Huat Aluminium & Glass Pte Ltd [2019] 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 [2019] 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 [2019] 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 [1995] 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 [2019] EWCA Civ 614 (“Group Seven”).
In the recent English Court of Appeal (“EWCA”) decision of Triple Point Technology, Inc v PTT Publish Company Ltd [2019] 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.
In the recent Singapore International Commercial Court (“SICC”) decision of B2C2 Ltd v Quoine Pte Ltd [2019] SGHC(I) 03 (“B2C2 v Quoine”), the SICC decided that, inter alia, “… where it is necessary to assess the state of mind of a person in a case where acts of deterministic computer programs are in issue, regard should be had to the state of mind of the programmer of the software of that program at the time the relevant part of the program was written.”
In CHL Construction Pte Ltd v Yangguang Group Pte Ltd [2019] SGHC 62 (“CHL v YG”), Justice Chan Seng Onn considered the question of whether, in relation to claims under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (“SOPA”), contractual provisions relating to SOPA timelines survive termination of the contract.
The recent High Court decision in Sito Construction Pte Ltd (trading as Afone International) v PBT Engineering Pte Ltd [2019] SGHC 7 (“Sito v Afone”) is yet another reminder of the importance of raising jurisdictional objection as early as possible for respondents under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (“SOP Act”).
![CHUANG LONG ENGINEERING PTE LTD V NAN HUAT ALUMINIUM & GLASS PTE LTD [2019] SGHC 55](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5b6dba3250a54f3034533fb4/1558360922746-VOYHEHBKCWOF7WUVLRT9/image-asset.jpeg)
![GROUP SEVEN LIMITED & ANOR V NOTABLE SERVICES LLP & ANOR [2019] EWCA CIV 614](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5b6dba3250a54f3034533fb4/1555558879394-5H1VQUXK09FS3ZOYV0B8/image-asset.jpeg)
