Chip Hup Hup Kee Construction Pte Ltd v Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co Ltd

Chip Hup Hup Kee Construction Pte Ltd v Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co Ltd

An 18‑day delay by the SMC in serving an adjudication determination does not, by itself, render a determination a nullity where the adjudicator reached the determination within the statutory period; nor is a signature required for validity where the document is demonstrably the adjudicator's decision and was made in...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] SGHC 269
Parties
Claimant: Chip Hup Hup Kee Construction Pte Ltd; Respondent: Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co Ltd
Court
General Division of the High Court
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
26 November 2009
Case Number
OS 976/2009, SUM 5184/2009
Procedural Posture
Application Under Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act to Set Aside an Adjudication Determination (os 976/2009, SUM 5184/2009) / Hearing on Summons Under S27(5) SOP Act; Decision on First Ground Delivered; Costs Reserved
Outcome
Respondent's summons to set aside the Unsigned Adjudication Determination on the First Ground dismissed
Legal Topics
Adjudication Validity, Service of Determination, Requirement of Signature, Jurisdiction to Adjudicate, Natural Justice
Source Language
english
Building and Construction Law Dispute Resolution Adjudication / Security of Payment Adjudication Validity Service of Determination Requirement of Signature Jurisdiction to Adjudicate Natural Justice

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chip Hup Hup Kee Construction Pte Ltd

Claimant

Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act to Set Aside an Adjudication Determination (os 976/2009, SUM 5184/2009) / Hearing on Summons Under S27(5) SOP Act; Decision on First Ground Delivered; Costs Reserved

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an 18‑day delay by the authorised nominating body (SMC) in serving an adjudication determination vitiates the determination
  2. 2 Whether an adjudication determination must be signed to be valid
  3. 3 Whether an unsigned determination constituted a draft and was therefore invalid or out of time

Ratio Decidendi

An 18‑day delay by the SMC in serving an adjudication determination does not, by itself, render a determination a nullity where the adjudicator reached the determination within the statutory period; nor is a signature required for validity where the document is demonstrably the adjudicator's decision and was made in time; accordingly the Unsigned Adjudication Determination was not set aside on these grounds.

Court Disposition

Respondent's summons to set aside the Unsigned Adjudication Determination on the First Ground dismissed

Orders

  • Unsigned Adjudication Determination not set aside on grounds that it was unsigned, a draft or because of the 18‑day service delay
  • Leave previously granted to enforce the Unsigned Adjudication Determination remains effective