Benlen Pte Ltd v Authentic Builder Pte Ltd

Benlen Pte Ltd v Authentic Builder Pte Ltd

PC19 was invalidly served in breach of the subcontractual date and s10(2)(a) SOPA, but Authentic waived its right to object and is estopped from raising the invalidity because it failed to raise the objection in its payment response and adjudication response; consequently the setting aside application was dismissed.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] SGHC 61
Parties
Applicant: Benlen Pte Ltd; Respondent: Authentic Builder Pte Ltd
Court
General Division of the High Court
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
19 March 2018
Case Number
HC/OS 1002/2017 ( HC/SUM 4475/2017 )
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons Under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (sopa) / Setting Aside Application to Challenge Adjudication Determination and Leave to Enforce Adjudication (high Court Judgment)
Outcome
Setting Aside Application dismissed; adjudication determination and leave to enforce are upheld
Legal Topics
Adjudication Under SOPA, Premature Payment Claim, Section 10(2) SOPA, Setting Aside Adjudication Determination, Waiver, Estoppel, Variation of Contract, Interpretation Act S50: Computation of Time, Procedure for Payment Responses S15(3)(a)
Source Language
english
Building and Construction Law Contract Dispute Resolution Equity Adjudication Under SOPA Premature Payment Claim Section 10(2) SOPA Setting Aside Adjudication Determination +5 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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Benlen Pte Ltd

Applicant

Authentic Builder Pte Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons Under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (sopa) / Setting Aside Application to Challenge Adjudication Determination and Leave to Enforce Adjudication (high Court Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Payment Claim 19 was validly served in accordance with clause 8.1 read with Appendix 1 and s10(2)(a) SOPA
  2. 2 Whether the 23 September 2016 email amounted to a variation of the subcontract permitting earlier service
  3. 3 Whether Authentic waived or is estopped from objecting to invalid service by failing to raise jurisdictional objections in the payment response and adjudication response

Ratio Decidendi

PC19 was invalidly served in breach of the subcontractual date and s10(2)(a) SOPA, but Authentic waived its right to object and is estopped from raising the invalidity because it failed to raise the objection in its payment response and adjudication response; consequently the setting aside application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Setting Aside Application dismissed; adjudication determination and leave to enforce are upheld

Orders

  • Setting Aside Application dismissed
  • Hearing on costs to be fixed within two weeks if parties cannot agree