Make a presentation on the case: Chua Say Eng v Lee Wee Lick Terence @ Li Weili

Terence [2010] SGHC 333) and explain the supervisory powers of the court, if any, over the

statutory adjudication process in Singapore under the SOP Act.

Tutorial Group 2 Sub-Group 5:

CHEN XIAOQING U097854ACHIN BO WEI, ANDREW U097892NLIN XUANYU U097858YTHIA CHIONG WEI U097886NYOSUA NG YU GUO U097852E

Definitions

• AdjudicationUnder Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanismsSimilar to arbitration There is a set timeframe within which the

adjudicator must make a decision Parties are responsible for their own costs unless

otherwise agreed. Decisions made in adjudication are binding.Aimed at being faster and more cost effectiveCommonly used in the construction industry to

ensure payment and resolve other types of disputes

Definitions

• Supervisory power of courtsWhen the Supreme Court exercises supervisory

power, it regulates the proceedings of other federal courts. More than a reference to every court’s inherent authority, therefore, is required to justify the Court’s action. If the Supreme Court possesses a unique ability to regulate federal court procedure, it must be because of some unique attribute of the Supreme Court.

Definitions

• Supervisory power of courtsThe law in this area is clear. This Court has

supervisory authority over the federal courts, and we may use that authority to prescribe rules of evidence and procedure that are binding in those

—Dickerson v. United States

Case Summary

3 main issues arise

Damages awarded to P and D applied to refute this decision

Adjudication application was served to D but he did not respond within the stipulated date

P made adjudication application in compliance with s(12) and s(13) of SOPA

Payment claim of outstanding amount was left under the door at D’s house but he did not make a response

D claimed that P was in a repudiatory breach and instructed P to leave the site

Plaintiff (P) was engaged by defendant (D) to reconstruct his house

3 Main Issues

• Validity of Payment Claim under the SOPA

• Whether the Payment Claim was served in accordance with the SOPA

• Whether the Payment Claim, if it had been served in accordance with the SOPA, was nevertheless served out of time.

Supervisory power of court

• Main argument was not the validity of the claim as it was considered during adjudicationtrue issue was whether the court should

review adjudicator’s decision may lead to conflict of authority as

decision made in adjudication are binding

Supervisory power of court

• Judith Prakash J held that …the court's role must be limited to

supervising the appointment and conduct of the adjudicator to ensure that the statutory provisions governing such appointment and conduct are adhered to and that the process of the adjudication, rather than the substance, is proper

Supervisory power of court

• If validity of Payment claim goes to jurisdictiondefeat the Parliament’s intention of a need for

adjudication Contractors can be bankrupt if they lack the cash

flow

• Most judges do not want to express their view on such issues unless adjudicators are unfair and unreasonable

Supervisory power of court over Adjudication

• Wednesbury unreasonablenessthe corporation, in making that decision, took

into account factors that ought not to have been taken into account, or

the corporation failed to take account factors that ought to have been taken into account, or

the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would ever consider imposing it.

Supervisory power of court

Supervisory power of court over Adjudication

1st issue: Validity of Payment Claim under SOPA

• There is no requirement that a payment claim must contain a statement that it is a payment claim under the SOPA

• Sungdo Engineering & Construction (S) Pte Ltd v Italcor Pte LtdParty that submitted must have intention to

do soMust contains necessary information

Supervisory power of court over Adjudication

1st issue: Validity of Payment Claim under SOPA

Chua Say Eng v Lee Wee Lick Terence @ Li Weili Terence

Sungdo Engineering & Construction (S) Pte Ltd v

Italcor Pte Ltd

Details such as the amount to be claimed specified with relevant title “Payment Claim N0.6”

Titled “Letter from Italcor to Sungdo” Concluded with “Finally, we wish you greetings of the season!”

Letter is printed, signed and dated and stamped at every pages

Person signing it was unknown and date was handwritten

The express title, and the general formality of the Payment Claim justifies it to be a payment claim under the SOPA

General tenor of the document was more akin to an informal letter than to a payment claim under the SOPA

2nd issue: Whether the payment claim was served in accordance to SOPA?

• Defendant claimed that he did not receive the Payment Claim when it was served by the Plaintiff at his Residential Address.

• He argued that there is no evidence to show that he actually received the Payment Claim, no personal service of the Payment Claim is done as per required by the SOP, as plaintiff did not satisfy s 37(1) of the SOPA=> SOPA not exhaustive, can include other acts in for interpretation such as from the Interpretation Act.

• Plaintiff argued that he fulfilled the (1)(a)(ii) of the Interpretation Act (Cap. 1, 2002 Rev Ed), which states-- (ii) by leaving it at, or by sending it by pre-paid post to, the usual or last known address of the place of residence or business of the individual.

3rd issue: Whether the payment claim was served out of time under SOPA?

• By reg 5(1) --- Where a contract does not contain any provision specifying the time at which a payment claim shall be served or by which such time may be determined, then a payment claim made under the contract shall be served by the last day of each month following the month in which the contract is made.

• If parliament had intended that there should be a limitation period, there could easily be a provision in the SOPA, but this is not the case as it would restrict claims on work done in previous months=> deem as unreasonable if the court were to do so.

• Finally, reg 5(1) clarifies that if the contract does not specify that a payment claim must be served by, on or after a specified day of the month, then the default position is that a payment claim must be served “by the last day of the month”.

Conclusion

• Payment claim should be made in clear language

• Must satisfy the requirement of ‘basic and essential’=> ie. Intention to be a payment claim