DMC v DMD

DMC v DMD

Court held that (1) no contractual express requirement in Section 2 cl 24 prevented DMC from imposing backcharges and, on the facts, DMD had sufficient notice of DMC stepping in; (2) DMD elected to waive SOPA s26 suspension by continuing to perform and claiming for works, so s 26 could not be relied on as a defence...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] SGHC 151
Parties
Claimant: DMC; Defendant: DMD; Claimant in Counterclaim: DMD; Defendant in Counterclaim: DMC
Court
General Division of the High Court
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
6 August 2025
Case Number
HC/OC 868/2023
Procedural Posture
Originating Claim for Breach of Subcontract and Counterclaim Under Sub Contracts (road Marking) / Final Judgment (general Division of the High Court)
Outcome
Claim allowed in part in favour of DMC; DMD's counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Backcharges, Liquidated Damages, Waiver by Election, SOPA S26 Suspension, Contract Interpretation, Pre Judgment Interest, Unjust Enrichment, Estoppel
Source Language
english
Contract Construction Law Statutory Adjudication/sopa Commercial Remedies Backcharges Liquidated Damages Waiver by Election SOPA S26 Suspension +4 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DMC

Claimant

DMD

Defendant

DMD

Claimant in Counterclaim

DMC

Defendant in Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Originating Claim for Breach of Subcontract and Counterclaim Under Sub Contracts (road Marking) / Final Judgment (general Division of the High Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether specific notice was required before general contractor could incur backcharges (Section 2 cl 24 / general damages)
  2. 2 Scope and effect of agreements recorded in 14 June 2022 minutes (application and meaning of "3rd party")
  3. 3 Entitlement to items claimed in Backcharge 1 (site expenses, depreciation, dormitory/ancillary costs)

Ratio Decidendi

Court held that (1) no contractual express requirement in Section 2 cl 24 prevented DMC from imposing backcharges and, on the facts, DMD had sufficient notice of DMC stepping in; (2) DMD elected to waive SOPA s26 suspension by continuing to perform and claiming for works, so s 26 could not be relied on as a defence to Backcharge 3; (3) disputed site and ancillary expenses and depreciation claimed by DMC were reasonable and recoverable; (4) Backcharge 2 was not proven excessive; (5) personnel obligations in Section 2 (cll 8.1, 8.4.1) applied to DMD; (6) liquidated damages clause was a genuine pre-estimate and LD for delays (including unfinished Fifth Month Field Tests) was payable; and (7)...

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part in favour of DMC; DMD's counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • DMC's claims for Backcharges 1 to 6 allowed
  • DMC's claim for liquidated damages in the sum of 888300.00 SGD (excluding GST) allowed