In the recent High Court decision of Yap Chen Hsiang Osborn v Public Prosecutor [2019] SGCA 40 (“Osborn”), the Court of Appeal acquitted the Applicant of five charges under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap. 65A) (the “CDSA”) and set aside his sentences imposed in respect of those charges.
In the recent decision of BNA v BNB and another [2019] SGHC 142 (“BNA v BNB”), the High Court made many important observations concerning arbitration law in Singapore.
In the recent High Court decision of Lendlease Singapore Pte Ltd v M & S Management & Contracts Services Pte Ltd [2019] SGHC 139 (“Lendlease”), the High Court overturned the finding by the adjudicator below and held that the adjudication application was filed out of time and in breach of section 13(3)(a) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (“SOP Act”).
In the recent Court of Appeal decision of Bintai Kindenko Pte Ltd v Samsung C&T Corp [2019] 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 [2019] 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 [2019] 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 [2019] 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 [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.