Hong Huat Development Co (Pte) Ltd v Hiap Hong & Company Pte Ltd

Hong Huat Development Co (Pte) Ltd v Hiap Hong & Company Pte Ltd

The court held that while an implied duty exists on the employer not to interfere and to take reasonable steps to enable the architect to discharge certification duties, this does not extend to an obligation to direct or 'order' the architect on how to certify; the architect’s independence precludes imposing...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2000] SGHC 131
Parties
Appellant / Employer: Hong Huat Development Co (Pte) Ltd; Respondent / Contractor: Hiap Hong & Company Pte Ltd
Court
General Division of the High Court
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
6 July 2000
Case Number
OM 12/1999, CA 85/1999
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Award Appeal / High Court Determination on Appeal From Arbitrator
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; arbitrator’s award in respect of first part of Item (a) and Items (b) to (d) set aside; award in respect of Item (e) unaffected.
Legal Topics
Implied Terms, Architect as Certifier, Independence of Certifier, Liability of Employer for Certifier’s Default, Prevention Principle, Interest for Late Payment
Source Language
english
Construction / Building Contracts Arbitration Contract Law Agency / Professional Duties Implied Terms Architect as Certifier Independence of Certifier Liability of Employer for Certifier’s Default +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hong Huat Development Co (Pte) Ltd

Appellant / Employer

Hiap Hong & Company Pte Ltd

Respondent / Contractor

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Award Appeal / High Court Determination on Appeal From Arbitrator

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an implied term binds the owner to ensure the architect performs certification duties correctly
  2. 2 Whether owner is liable for architect’s delay or over‑certification when architect acts as independent certifier
  3. 3 Whether owner must have knowledge of architect’s default before liability arises

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that while an implied duty exists on the employer not to interfere and to take reasonable steps to enable the architect to discharge certification duties, this does not extend to an obligation to direct or 'order' the architect on how to certify; the architect’s independence precludes imposing liability on the owner for the architect’s certification defaults (including late issuance or over‑certification) as alleged in Items (a)–(d), and the arbitrator’s awards on those items must be set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; arbitrator’s award in respect of first part of Item (a) and Items (b) to (d) set aside; award in respect of Item (e) unaffected.

Orders

  • Set aside arbitrator’s award insofar as it granted relief for the first part of Item (a) (SGD 351,576.28) and for Items (b) (SGD 1,799.70), (c) (SGD 26,351.40) and (d) (SGD 176,210.50).
  • Proceedings as to costs to be heard.