P & P ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION PTE. LTD. v KORI CONSTRUCTION (S) PTE. LTD.

P & P ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION PTE. LTD. v KORI CONSTRUCTION (S) PTE. LTD.

Application dismissed because the statutory power to order interim payment under para 15 First Schedule SCJA and Order 29 presupposes a pending court proceeding in which the Court can adjudicate the sum; here trial had concluded and quantification was to be determined by a binding quantity surveyor outside further court adjudication, so there was no 'pending proceeding' for interim payment purposes and the requirements of O 29 r 11(1)(b) (damages assessment) and r 12(c) (if action proceeded to trial) were not satisfied.

Citation
[2019] SGHCR 10
Parties
Plaintiff/applicant: P & P Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd; Defendant/respondent: Kori Construction (S) Pte Ltd
Court
High Court Registrar
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
26 June 2019
Case Number
HC/S 1255/2016 ( HC/SUM 2210/2019 )
Procedural Posture
Interim Payment Application (order 29) / Interlocutory Application After Trial; Trial Concluded; Quantification by Jointly Appointed Quantity Surveyor Pending
Outcome
Application for interim payment dismissed
Legal Topics
Interim Payment, Order 29 Rules of Court, Jurisdiction, Quantification by Third Party, Pending Proceeding
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Contract Law Construction Law Debt Recovery Remedies Interim Payment Order 29 Rules of Court Jurisdiction +2 more

Case Brief

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P & P Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd

Plaintiff/applicant

Kori Construction (S) Pte Ltd

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Interim Payment Application (order 29) / Interlocutory Application After Trial; Trial Concluded; Quantification by Jointly Appointed Quantity Surveyor Pending

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Preliminary failure to identify specific rule/sub‑paragraph for interim payment application
  2. 2 Whether the court has power under para 15 First Schedule SCJA to order interim payment where quantification is by a third party after trial
  3. 3 Whether requirements of O 29 r 11(1)(b) (action for damages; judgment for damages to be assessed) are met

Ratio Decidendi

Application dismissed because the statutory power to order interim payment under para 15 First Schedule SCJA and Order 29 presupposes a pending court proceeding in which the Court can adjudicate the sum; here trial had concluded and quantification was to be determined by a binding quantity surveyor outside further court adjudication, so there was no 'pending proceeding' for interim payment purposes and the requirements of O 29 r 11(1)(b) (damages assessment) and r 12(c) (if action proceeded to trial) were not satisfied.

Court Disposition

Application for interim payment dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Costs reserved; court will hear counsel on costs