LITT
Try LITT free
33Club Pte Ltd v Design Cliniq Pte Ltd [2026] SGHC 39
In 33Club Pte Ltd v Design Cliniq Pte Ltd, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Building and Construction Law — Construction torts, Building and Construction Law — Contractors’ duties.
E Tech Building Services Pte Ltd v Foreign Domestic Worker Association for Social Support and Training (FAST) [2026] SGHC 12
The High Court partially allowed E Tech Building Services' claim against FAST, awarding $1,062,662.84. The court rejected a 15% profit and attendance fee claim, citing a lack of evidentiary support and failure to justify the markup as a reasonable estimate of compensation.
Arki-Tech International Pte Ltd v Rentak Tebrau Sdn Bhd [2025] SGHC 233
In Arki-Tech International Pte Ltd v Rentak Tebrau Sdn Bhd, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Building and Construction Law — Building and construction contracts, Contract — Contractual terms.
DMC v DMD [2025] SGHC 151
In DMC v DMD, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Contract — Contractual terms ; Contract — Terms, Building and Construction Law — Statutes and regulations.
Tradesmen Pte Ltd v Ten-League Corporations Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC 114
In Tradesmen Pte Ltd v Ten-League Corporations Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC 114, the High Court restrained a bond call, ruling the instrument was an indemnity bond requiring proof of actual loss, rather than an on-demand bond. The court also clarified the interplay between bond calls and adjudication.
Hiap Seng Building Construction Pte Ltd v Hock Heng Seng Contractor Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 50
In Hiap Seng Building Construction Pte Ltd v Hock Heng Seng Contractor Pte Ltd, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Building and Construction Law — Statutes and regulations, Equity — Estoppel.
Shanghai Chong Kee Furniture & Construction Pte Ltd v Church of St Teresa [2024] SGHC 5
In Shanghai Chong Kee Furniture & Construction Pte Ltd v Church of St Teresa, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Building and Construction Law — Performance bond, Injunctions — Unconscionability.
Tid Plus Design Pte Ltd v Kwek Seng Wee John [2024] SGHC 187
The court held that 'completion' of a stage in a renovation contract for the purpose of progress payments requires substantial performance, and that the court is the ultimate arbiter of this legal and contractual standard, not the expert.
Wan Sern Metal Industries Pte Ltd v Hua Tian Engineering Pte Ltd [2023] SGHC 46
A stay of enforcement of an adjudication determination under SOPA is justified only if there is clear evidence of the claimant's actual present insolvency or if there is a real risk that the money paid would not be recoverable if the dispute were resolved in the respondent's favo
JE Synergy Engineering Pte Ltd v Sinohydro Corp Ltd (Singapore Branch) [2023] SGHC 362
The court held that in an application to set aside an adjudication determination under s 27(6)(h) of the SOPA, the court should not engage in the merits of the dispute as a whole, especially where the allegations of fraud or corruption are hotly contested and overlap with the sub
Terrenus Energy SL2 Pte Ltd v Attika Interior + MEP Pte Ltd [2023] SGHC 333
The Singapore High Court in Terrenus Energy v Attika Interior clarified pre-judgment interest calculations under the Civil Law Act. The court rejected unsubstantiated lending-based rates, instead applying conservative deposit-based rates for damages and balance sums based on loss accrual dates.
H P Construction & Engineering Pte Ltd v Mega Team Engineering Pte Ltd [2023] SGHC 298
The seven-day period for filing an adjudication application under s 13(3)(a) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004 excludes the day on which the entitlement to make the application first arises, pursuant to s 50(a) of the Interpretation Act 1965.
Chian Teck Realty Pte Ltd v SDK Consortium and another [2023] SGHC 210
A beneficiary's call on an unconditional performance bond is invalid if it is made pursuant to a clause requiring a condition precedent (such as a notice of non-extension) that has not been satisfied. The fraud exception requires a high standard of proof, which is not met where t
Pro-Active Engineering Pte Ltd v Prime Structures Engineering Pte Ltd [2023] SGHC 205
In Pro-Active Engineering Pte Ltd v Prime Structures Engineering Pte Ltd, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Building and Construction Law — Building and construction contracts, Building and Construction Law — Contractors’ duties.
JP Nelson Equipment Pte Ltd v Builders Hub Pte Ltd [2023] SGHC 186
The court may set aside an adjudication determination on the ground of fraud if the fraud is proven, even if the strict two-step test in Facade Solution is not fully met, as fraud unravels everything.
Asia Grand Pte Ltd v A I Associates Pte Ltd [2023] SGHC 175
The Singapore High Court set aside an Adjudication Determination in Asia Grand Pte Ltd v A I Associates Pte Ltd [2023] SGHC 175, ruling that the application was lodged prematurely. The court held that the Adjudicator lacked jurisdiction, rendering the determination void under the SOPA.
GIB Automation Pte Ltd v Deluge Fire Protection (SEA) Pte Ltd [2007] SGHC 48
The court held that a 'back-to-back' provision in a construction sub-contract does not automatically incorporate all terms of the main contract, and that a party terminating a contract based on its own erroneous interpretation of such terms does so at its own peril.
Tiong Seng Contractors (Pte) Ltd v Chuan Lim Construction Pte Ltd [2007] SGHC 142
The Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B) encompasses and provides for the adjudication of final progress payments.
China Construction (South Pacific) Development Co Pte Ltd v Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd [2005] SGHC 86
The court held that the contract between the parties was not a lump sum contract but one based on re-measurement as per the appendix to the 26 January letter, which formed part of the agreement.
Jurong Readymix Concrete Pte Ltd v Crescendas Pte Ltd (formerly known as Tavica Design Pte Ltd) [2005] SGHC 67
The court held that the defendant's premature removal of formwork, rather than the plaintiff's supply of slow-setting concrete, was the cause of the cracks in the columns, thus breaking the chain of causation for the defendant's losses.
Soon Li Heng Civil Engineering Pte Ltd v Woon Contractors Pte Ltd [2005] SGHC 34
A sub-contractor is entitled to payment for work done under a lump sum contract where the work has been completed to the satisfaction of the employer, even if the main contractor alleges breaches of contract that are not substantiated.
Tan Wai Kok (formerly trading as TWK Skill Engineering Works) v Hart Engineering (Pte) Ltd [2005] SGHC 215
The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to payment for works performed, subject to set-offs for defective works and materials, and that the defendant's counterclaim for conspiracy was not made out.
Sun Fook Kong Construction Ltd (formerly known as Sung Foo Kee, Ltd) v Housing and Development Board [2004] SGHC 69
A party who has novated its contract to a third party and is no longer a party to the contract or the associated security bond has no locus standi to challenge a call on the bond.
Schindler Lifts (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Paya Ubi Industrial Park Pte Ltd and Another [2004] SGHC 34
The Singapore High Court ruled that Paya Ubi could not deduct defect rectification costs from the contract sum, as these were covered by a prior settlement agreement with Tekken. The court affirmed that settlement agreements preclude employers from re-characterizing defects to justify deductions.