CGS CONSTRUCTION PTE LTD v QUEK & QUEK CIVIL ENGINEERING PTE LTD

[2024] SGHC 183 High Court (General Division) 16 July 2024 • HC/OA 438/2024 ( HC/SUM 1388/2024 ) • 41 min read

9 cases cited (7 SG, 2 foreign)

Catchwords

Building and Construction Law – Dispute resolution – Setting aside adjudication determination on ground of invalid payment claim – Section 10(4) Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004 (2020 Rev Ed) Building and Construction Law – Dispute resolution – Setting aside adjudication determination on ground of contract not being in writing – Sections 4(1) and 4(5) Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004 (2020 Rev Ed) Building and Construction Law – Dispute resolution – Setting aside adjudication determination on ground of work falling outside definition of construction work – Section 3 Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004 (2020 Rev Ed)

Practice Areas

Building and Construction Law

Judges (1)

Kwek Mean Luck Delivered

Counsel (8)

Christopher Chuah Law Chambers LLC Firm Eldan Law LLP Firm Amanda Koh Counsel Claimant Christopher Chuah Counsel Respondent Edwin Lee Counsel Claimant Michael Leong Counsel Respondent Smrithi Sadasivam Counsel Claimant Terrence Ng Counsel Respondent

Parties (2)

CGS Construction Pte Ltd Claimant Quek & Quek Civil Engineering Pte Ltd Respondent

Case Significance

CGS Construction Pte Ltd v Quek & Quek Civil Engineering Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 183 was a reserved judgment of the General Division of the High Court delivered by Kwek Mean Luck J on 16 July 2024, in Originating Application No 438 of 2024 and Summons No 1388 of 2024. The claimant was CGS Construction Pte Ltd and the respondent was Quek & Quek Civil Engineering Pte Ltd. CGS Construction sought to set aside an adjudication determination made under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004 (2020 Rev Ed) ("SOPA").

The judgment addressed several grounds for setting aside the adjudication determination: that the payment claim was invalid under s 10(4) of SOPA; that the contract was not in writing as required under ss 4(1) and 4(5) of SOPA; and that the work fell outside the definition of construction work under s 3 of SOPA. Kwek Mean Luck J examined the requirement under s 4(5) that, where a contract is only partly in writing, the matter in dispute must be in writing, and considered what that involves, including whether it suffices that there is a record of the dispute setting out the parties' positions, or whether the relevant contractual term or agreement must itself be in writing. The claimant was represented by Eldan Law LLP and the respondent by Christopher Chuah Law Chambers LLC.

Summary

Quek & Quek Civil Engineering Pte Ltd applied to set aside an adjudication determination made under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004, which had ordered it to pay CGS Construction Pte Ltd $1,633,173.93 for subcontracted landfill works at Semakau Landfill. The grounds advanced were that there was no contract in writing for the purposes of the Act, that no valid payment claim had been served, and that the works fell outside the definition of construction work. The General Division of the High Court found that the works fell within the statutory definition of construction works as land reclamation, held that the applicant had not succeeded in setting aside the determination, and dismissed the application.

What was CGS Construction Pte Ltd v Quek & Quek Civil Engineering Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 183 about?

CGS Construction sought to set aside an adjudication determination under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004. Kwek Mean Luck J considered grounds including an invalid payment claim, the contract not being in writing, and the work falling outside the statutory definition of construction work.

What did the court examine about written contracts under SOPA in CGS Construction v Quek & Quek?

Kwek Mean Luck J examined s 4(5) of SOPA, which requires that where a contract is only partly in writing, the matter in dispute must be in writing. The court considered whether a record of the dispute suffices, or whether the relevant contractual term itself must be in writing.