ROLL SG PTE. LTD. v CONG TY CO PHAN VAN TAI LIEN HIEP HUY HOANG

"Consequently, on this issue, the court finds that HTL breached the terms of the Contract by failing to repair the damage to the Crane and return the same in good condition to Roll." — Per Anselmo Reyes IJ, Para 71

Case Information

• Citation: [2023] SGHC(I) 5 (Para 1)
• Court: Singapore International Commercial Court, a division of the General Division of the Singapore High Court (Para 42)
• Date of judgment: 25 April 2023 (Para 1)
• Hearing dates: 12 January and 24 February 2023 (Para 1)
• Coram: Anselmo Reyes IJ (Para 1)
• Case number: Suit No 9 of 2021 (Para 1)
• Counsel for the plaintiff: Lee Soong Yan, Kevin (sole proprietor) (instructed), Eunice Lau Guan Ting and Samuel Wittberger (Drew & Napier LLC) (Para 1)
• Defendant: absent and unrepresented (Para 1)
• Area of law: Contract — Breach — Rental agreement; Contract — Remedies — Damages (Para 1)
• Judgment length: Not answerable from the extraction (Para 1)

Summary

This dispute arose out of crane rental agreements between Roll SG Pte. Ltd. and Cong Ty Co Phan Van Tai Lien Hiep Huy Hoang, collectively described as the Contract, under which Roll leased a CC6800 crawler crane to HTL for use on a wind farm project in Vietnam. The crane was delivered in good condition, but it was severely damaged during transport on 2 November 2020, and Roll later claimed damages for repair, return, unpaid rental, demobilisation, and late payment interest. The court recorded that the dispute arose out of several crane rental agreements and that Roll sought damages for breach of the Contract. (Para 1, Para 2, Para 10, Para 23)

"The dispute arises out of several crane rental agreements (collectively, the “Contract”) between the plaintiff, Roll SG Pte. Ltd. (“Roll”), and the defendant, Cong Ty Co Phan Van Tai Lien Hiep Huy Hoang (“HTL”)." — Per Anselmo Reyes IJ, Para 1

The court first addressed jurisdiction and held that the Singapore International Commercial Court had jurisdiction over the dispute. It reasoned that the contractual jurisdiction clause referring disputes to the “Court of Singapore” encompassed the SICC, and it also analysed the statutory framework under the Supreme Court of Judicature Act and the Rules of Court 2014. The court further noted that HTL had objected to jurisdiction in correspondence but had not clarified the basis of that objection or appeared to defend the action. (Para 26, Para 33, Para 42, Para 43, Para 46)

"Accordingly, the SICC has jurisdiction pursuant to Section 18A of the SCJA." — Per Anselmo Reyes IJ, Para 42

On liability, the court held that HTL breached the Contract by failing to repair the crane and return it in good condition, by failing to pay the outstanding rental and demobilisation invoices, and by failing to pay late payment interest. On quantum, it accepted Roll’s claimed repair costs, return costs, unpaid invoices, and interest, and it ordered HTL to pay costs as well. The court’s final orders included a declaration of jurisdiction, damages in multiple currencies, late payment interest, simple interest from judgment, and costs. (Para 71, Para 81, Para 93, Para 119, Para 129, Para 131, Para 136, Para 139, Para 141, Para 142)

"Consequently, on this issue, the court finds that HTL breached the terms of the Contract by failing to pay for the outstanding invoices for the rental and demobilisation of the Crane." — Per Anselmo Reyes IJ, Para 81

What were the contractual and factual foundations of Roll’s claim?

The court began from the contractual relationship itself. Roll and HTL entered into several crane rental agreements, and the dispute concerned the allocation of responsibility for the crane, its transport, and the financial consequences of damage and non-payment. The judgment records that Roll agreed to lease a CC6800 crawler crane to HTL for use on a wind farm project in Vietnam, and that the crane was delivered in good condition. The handover documentation was important because it recorded that no physical damage was detected and that all crane parts were received in good condition. (Para 1, Para 10)

"The document certifying the handover of the Crane by Roll to HTL (the “Handover Document”) stated that “no physical damages were detected, and all the crane parts are received in good condition”." — Per Anselmo Reyes IJ, Para 10

The factual turning point was the damage on 2 November 2020. The court recorded that the crane was severely damaged while being transported by HTL. That fact mattered because the contractual allocation of risk and responsibility depended on who bore the obligation to keep the crane in good condition and to return it in that condition. The court later relied on the contractual text to conclude that HTL, not Roll, bore liability for the damage. (Para 1, Para 64, Para 71)

"On 2 November 2020, the Crane was severely damaged while being transported by HTL." — Per Anselmo Reyes IJ, Para 1

Roll also relied on post-incident reports and invoices. The extraction records that reports were prepared based on inspections of the crane from 4 November 2020 to 29 June 2021, and that Roll later issued invoices for rental and demobilisation which HTL did not pay. Those unpaid invoices became a separate head of claim, distinct from the repair and return costs. The court treated the invoices and the contractual payment terms as central to the monetary relief sought. (Para 14, Para 23, Para 81, Para 131)

"Reports were prepared based on inspections of the Crane from 4 November 2020 to 29 June 2021." — Per Anselmo Reyes IJ, Para 14

How did the court decide that the SICC had jurisdiction?

The jurisdiction analysis was one of the first substantive issues. The court framed the question as whether the SICC had jurisdiction over the parties’ dispute, and it approached that question by examining both the contractual jurisdiction clause and the statutory framework. The judgment states that Section 18A of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act expressly provides that the SICC is a division of the General Division of the Singapore High Court. It then explained that, pursuant to Section 18D of the SCJA read with Order 110 rule 7(1) of the Rules of Court 2014, the SICC has jurisdiction to hear and try actions satisfying the relevant conditions. (Para 3, Para 42, Para 43)

"Section 18A of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 (Cap 322) (the “SCJA”) expressly states that the SICC is a division of the General Division of the Singapore High Court." — Per Anselmo Reyes IJ, Para 42

The court also relied on the general civil jurisdiction of the General Division under section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the SCJA, which permits the court to hear and try actions in personam where the defendant is served outside Singapore in the manner authorised by the Rules of Court. The judgment records that the court considered the service and jurisdictional framework together, rather than treating the contractual clause as the sole basis. This was important because the defendant had objected to jurisdiction in correspondence, but the objection was not developed in a way that displaced the court’s analysis. (Para 46, Para 26, Para 33)

"under s 16(1)(a)(ii) of the SCJA, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore has civil jurisdiction to hear and try any action in personam where the defendant is served with a writ of summons “outside Singapore in the circumstances authorised by and in the manner prescribed by Rules of Court”." — Per Anselmo Reyes IJ, Para 46

On the contractual side, the court held that the jurisdiction clause referring disputes to the “Court of Singapore” covered the SICC. The extraction states that the court concluded the SICC had jurisdiction pursuant to section 18A of the SCJA, and the final orders included a declaration to that effect. The practical significance is that the court treated the SICC as falling within the contractual reference to Singapore’s courts, rather than as a separate or excluded forum. (Para 42, Para 142(a))

"Accordingly, the SICC has jurisdiction pursuant to Section 18A of the SCJA." — Per Anselmo Reyes IJ, Para 42

What did HTL say about jurisdiction, and how did the court treat its objection?

HTL’s position on jurisdiction appeared in correspondence rather than in a defended appearance. The extraction quotes a letter stating, “Our clients reject the jurisdiction of the SICC to adjudicate this matter.” The court noted that HTL did not respond to Roll’s later letter and, in particular, did not clarify the bases of its jurisdictional objection. That omission mattered because the court was left without a developed challenge to the jurisdictional foundation of the claim. (Para 26, Para 33)

"Our clients reject the jurisdiction of the SICC to adjudicate this matter." — Per Anselmo Reyes IJ, Para 26

The court’s treatment of the objection was therefore procedural as well as substantive. It did not simply accept HTL’s assertion at face value; instead, it examined the statutory and contractual bases for jurisdiction and found them satisfied. The absence of a clarified objection meant that HTL did not displace the court’s conclusion that the SICC could hear the dispute. The judgment’s reasoning shows that a bare jurisdictional protest, without particulars, was insufficient to defeat the claim where the legal framework supported jurisdiction. (Para 33, Para 42, Para 43, Para 46)

"HTL did not respond to DN’s 5 July 2022 Letter. In particular, HTL did not clarify the bases of its jurisdictional objection." — Per Anselmo Reyes IJ, Para 33

The court ultimately declared jurisdiction in the dispositive orders. That declaration was not merely formal; it reflected the court’s conclusion that the contractual forum clause and the statutory provisions aligned to permit adjudication in Singapore. For practitioners, the case demonstrates that a Singapore forum clause can be read broadly enough to include the SICC, and that the statutory architecture of the SCJA and Rules of Court can independently support jurisdiction where service and other requirements are met. (Para 42, Para 43, Para 46, Para 142(a))

"There will be a Declaration that the SICC has jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims in SIC 9." — Per Anselmo Reyes IJ, Para 142(a)

Why did the court hold HTL liable for the crane damage?

The court’s liability analysis on the crane damage turned on the Contract’s allocation of responsibility. It held that the terms expressly placed liability on HTL for damage to the crane. The judgment states that the terms of the Contract expressly state that it is HTL who bears liability to Roll for the damage of the crane. That finding was decisive because it meant HTL could not avoid responsibility merely by pointing to the circumstances in which the damage occurred. (Para 64)

"The terms of the Contract expressly state that it is HTL who bears the liability to Roll for the damage of the Crane." — Per Anselmo Reyes IJ, Para 64

The court then addressed HTL’s attempt to shift responsibility to Vestas. It observed that even if HTL had a claim against Vestas in respect of the damage, that was a matter for HTL to pursue separately under its own contract with Vestas or otherwise. In other words, the existence of a possible third-party claim did not alter HTL’s primary contractual liability to Roll. The court’s reasoning is a straightforward application of privity and contractual risk allocation: Roll’s claim was against HTL under the Contract, not against Vestas. (Para 66)

"Even if HTL has a claim against Vestas in respect of the damage to the Crane, that is for HTL to pursue against Vestas separately under its contract with Vestas or otherwise." — Per Anselmo Reyes IJ, Para 66

Having found that the Contract placed the repair obligation on HTL, the court concluded that HTL breached the Contract by failing to repair the damage and return the crane in good condition. The judgment’s language is explicit and categorical. The breach finding was not based on a general notion of fairness; it was based on the contractual promise and HTL’s failure to perform it. (Para 71)

"Consequently, on this issue, the court finds that HTL breached the terms of the Contract by failing to repair the damage to the Crane and return the same in good condition to Roll." — Per Anselmo Reyes IJ, Para 71

How did the court deal with the unpaid rental and demobilisation invoices?

The unpaid invoices formed a separate head of claim. The court recorded that Roll issued invoices for the rental and demobilisation of the crane and that HTL had not paid them. The judgment then examined the contractual basis for those invoices and concluded that HTL was obliged to pay them. The court’s reasoning was not merely that invoices existed; it was that the Contract required payment and HTL had not discharged that obligation. (Para 23, Para 81)

"HTL has not paid these invoices." — Per Anselmo Reyes IJ, Para 23

The court’s conclusion on this issue was direct: HTL breached the Contract by failing to pay the outstanding invoices for the rental and demobilisation of the crane. That finding is important because it distinguishes between the physical damage claim and the commercial payment claim. Even if the damage dispute had been contested, the invoice claim stood on its own contractual footing. The court later quantified the unpaid invoices at US$3,245,967.74. (Para 81, Para 131)

"Consequently, on this issue, the court finds that HTL breached the terms of the Contract by failing to pay for the outstanding invoices for the rental and demobilisation of the Crane." — Per Anselmo Reyes IJ, Para 81

The court’s final orders reflected that separation of heads of loss by awarding damages for unpaid rental in the amount of US$3,245,967.74. The extraction indicates that the court accepted those invoices as due and owing to Roll. For commercial litigators, the case illustrates that where a rental contract contains clear payment obligations, non-payment can be established independently of disputes over damage or return of the hired equipment. (Para 131, Para 142(b)(iii))

"The court accepts that unpaid invoices in the total amount of US$3,245,967.74 are due and owing to Roll." — Per Anselmo Reyes IJ, Para 131

Why was HTL ordered to pay late payment interest?

The late payment interest issue turned on the Contract’s default interest clause and whether HTL had waived or escaped it. The court stated the legal principle that a clause imposing late payment interest will not be unenforceable or a penalty if it is a genuine pre-estimate of the likely loss to be incurred as a result of breach, citing Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co, Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co, Ltd. The court then applied that principle to the contractual interest provision before it. (Para 85)

"A clause imposing late payment interest will not be deemed unenforceable or a penalty if it is a genuine pre-estimate of the likely loss to be incurred as the result of a breach: Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co, Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co, Ltd [1915] AC 79." — Per Anselmo Reyes IJ, Para 85

The court also addressed waiver. It stated that for there to be waiver, the innocent party must have unequivocally communicated to the other party by words or conduct that it would not insist on its strict rights. That test mattered because HTL had suggested, in substance, that payment would be delayed until it collected revenue from other projects, and the court had to decide whether Roll had somehow relinquished its right to interest. The court concluded that no such waiver had been established. (Para 91, Para 92(b))

"For there to be waiver, the innocent party must have unequivocally communicated to the other party by words or conduct that it would not be insisting on its strict rights." — Per Anselmo Reyes IJ, Para 91

The correspondence quoted in the extraction shows HTL asking Roll to consider “pending and imposing interest” on payment for overdue invoices and acknowledging that the request was “too much to ask.” The court treated this as part of the factual matrix but not as a legal answer to the contractual interest claim. It ultimately held that HTL breached the Contract by failing to pay late payment interest for the sums outstanding under the unpaid invoices, and it quantified that interest at US$832,603.62. (Para 92(b), Para 93, Para 136)

"we would be grateful if Roll would consider [allowing] ‘pending and imposing interest’ on our payment for these overdue invoices ... We’re aware that this is too much to ask but we really hope for your kind understanding" — Per Anselmo Reyes IJ, Para 92(b)

How did the court assess damages for repair and return of the crane?

The damages analysis for repair costs was evidence-driven. The court relied on inspection reports prepared over an extended period, and on the survey evidence of Mr Kommers. The extraction records that according to Mr Kommers’ survey report dated 25 July 2022, the damage to the crane was brought about by repeated oscillating swinging of the boom and jib. That evidence supported the conclusion that the damage was substantial and that repair costs were recoverable. (Para 14, Para 96)

"According to Mr Kommers’ survey report dated 25 July 2022, the damage to the Crane was brought about by repeated oscillating swinging of the boom and jib." — Per Anselmo Reyes IJ, Para 96

The court then quantified the repair costs and deducted the salvage value credited to HTL. The extraction states that the total quantum for the repair costs of the crane, after deducting the salvage value, amounted to €5,064,365.93. This shows that the court did not simply accept a gross repair figure; it adjusted the amount to reflect the salvage credit. That is a classic damages methodology: assess the reasonable cost of repair, then net off any value retained or recovered. (Para 119)

"Consequently, the total quantum for the repair costs of the Crane (after deducting the salvage value credited to HTL) amounts to €5,064,365.93." — Per Anselmo Reyes IJ, Para 119

The return costs were treated separately. The court accepted the total quantum for the return costs of the crane as €44,399, US$1,215,844.13, and S$96,641.60. The extraction indicates that these sums were accepted as reasonable and recoverable, and the final orders mirrored them. The court’s approach demonstrates that return costs can be recovered as a distinct category where the contract and the factual circumstances justify them. (Para 129, Para 142(b)(ii))

"Accordingly, the court accepts the total quantum for the return costs of the Crane are €44,399, US$1,215,844.13, and S$96,641.60." — Per Anselmo Reyes IJ, Para 129

What did the court say about mitigation and reasonableness of Roll’s conduct?

The court expressly found that Roll acted reasonably in its duty to mitigate its damages. That finding is significant because mitigation often becomes a battleground in large equipment-damage claims, especially where repair, transport, and salvage decisions are expensive. The court’s conclusion indicates that Roll’s steps in relation to the crane and the associated costs were not treated as excessive or self-inflicted. (Para 109)

"Roll acted reasonably in its duty to mitigate its damages." — Per Anselmo Reyes IJ, Para 109

That mitigation finding supported the court’s acceptance of the claimed repair and return costs. It also underpinned the court’s willingness to award the amounts claimed rather than reducing them for alleged failure to minimise loss. In practical terms, the court accepted that Roll’s response to the damage and the logistics of return and repair were commercially reasonable in the circumstances. (Para 109, Para 119, Para 129)

"Roll acted reasonably in its duty to mitigate its damages." — Per Anselmo Reyes IJ, Para 109

The mitigation analysis also fits with the court’s broader treatment of HTL’s conduct. HTL did not appear to defend the action, did not clarify its jurisdictional objection, and did not displace Roll’s evidence on the damage and invoices. Against that background, the court’s acceptance of Roll’s mitigation efforts is unsurprising and reinforces the evidential weight of Roll’s case. (Para 33, Para 109, Para 131)

How did the court deal with the parties’ arguments and the absence of the defendant?

Roll’s position was straightforward: it sought damages for breach of the Contract, specifically the cost of repairing the crane, unpaid rental and demobilisation invoices, and late payment interest. The extraction records that Roll made those claims expressly. HTL, by contrast, did not appear and was absent and unrepresented. Its only recorded position in the extraction is a jurisdictional rejection and a request, in correspondence, for indulgence on overdue invoices. The asymmetry in participation shaped the evidential landscape. (Para 1, Para 2, Para 26, Para 92(b))

"Roll seeks damages against HTL for breach of the Contract. More specifically, Roll claims the cost of repairing the Crane, unpaid invoices for the rental and demobilisation of the Crane, and late payment interest." — Per Anselmo Reyes IJ, Para 2

The court did not treat HTL’s absence as a substitute for proof, but it did mean that Roll’s evidence and contractual documents were not meaningfully challenged. The court relied on the Handover Document, the inspection reports, the survey evidence, the invoices, and the correspondence. It also noted that HTL did not clarify the basis of its jurisdictional objection. In a commercial case of this kind, the absence of a defence can materially affect how the court evaluates the evidence, though the court still had to be satisfied on the merits. (Para 10, Para 14, Para 23, Para 33, Para 96)

"HTL did not respond to DN’s 5 July 2022 Letter. In particular, HTL did not clarify the bases of its jurisdictional objection." — Per Anselmo Reyes IJ, Para 33

The court’s final orders show that Roll succeeded on all major heads of claim. It obtained a declaration of jurisdiction, damages for repair and return, damages for unpaid rental, late payment interest, and costs, together with simple interest from the date of judgment. The case therefore stands as a complete commercial victory for the plaintiff on the pleaded issues reflected in the extraction. (Para 142(a), Para 142(b)(i)-(vi))

What exact relief did the court grant?

The dispositive orders are important because they show the full remedial structure of the judgment. The court declared that the SICC had jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims in SIC 9. It then ordered HTL to pay damages for repair of the crane in the sum of €5,064,365.93, damages for return costs in the amounts of €44,399.00, US$1,215,844.13, and S$96,641.60, damages for unpaid rental in the amount of US$3,245,967.74, and late payment interest in the amount of US$832,603.62. (Para 142(a), Para 142(b)(i)-(iv))

"HTL pay damages to Roll for the repair of the Crane in the sum of €5,064,365.93." — Per Anselmo Reyes IJ, Para 142(b)(i)

The court also ordered simple interest to accrue on the amounts set out in the relevant sub-paragraphs at 5.33% per annum from the date of judgment until payment. That is a significant commercial remedy because it preserves the value of the award pending satisfaction. The extraction does not provide a separate explanation for the 5.33% figure, so it should be treated as an order rather than an elaborated principle. (Para 142(b)(vi))

"Simple interest is to accrue on the amounts set out in sub-paragraphs (i) to (v) above at 5.33% per annum from the date of this Judgment until payment." — Per Anselmo Reyes IJ, Para 142(b)(vi)

Finally, the court ordered costs in Roll’s favour. It stated that Roll should have its costs of S$725,715.21 and US$34,140.02, and it accepted Roll’s claimed interlocutory costs of S$122,553.33 as reasonable in light of the need to ensure proper service on HTL in Vietnam. The costs order reflects both the contractual and procedural dimensions of the litigation. (Para 139, Para 141)

"Roll should have its costs of S$725,715.21 and US$34,140.02." — Per Anselmo Reyes IJ, Para 141

Why does this case matter?

This case matters because it confirms that a Singapore forum clause referring to the “Court of Singapore” can encompass the SICC, and that the SICC’s jurisdiction can be grounded in the SCJA and Rules of Court framework as well as the parties’ contract. For cross-border commercial disputes, that is a practical and important point: parties may find themselves in the SICC even if the clause is not drafted with technical precision. (Para 42, Para 43, Para 46, Para 142(a))

It also matters because it illustrates how contractual risk allocation can make a hirer liable for damage to hired equipment even where a third party may have been involved in the chain of events. The court’s statement that any claim HTL had against Vestas was for HTL to pursue separately underscores the independence of the plaintiff’s contractual claim. That is a useful reminder that downstream disputes do not necessarily defeat upstream contractual liability. (Para 64, Para 66, Para 71)

Finally, the case is a strong example of the enforcement of commercial payment obligations, including late payment interest and costs, where the defendant does not appear. The court accepted substantial damages, found no waiver of strict rights, and awarded interest and costs in a way that reinforces the commercial utility of clear contractual drafting. For practitioners, the case is a reminder to draft jurisdiction clauses, risk-allocation clauses, and default interest provisions with precision, and to preserve documentary evidence of handover, damage, invoices, and correspondence. (Para 85, Para 91, Para 109, Para 131, Para 136, Para 139, Para 141, Para 142)

Cases Referred To

Legislation Referenced

• Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 (Cap 322), section 18A (Para 42) [CDN] [SSO]
• Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 (Cap 322), section 18D (Para 43) [CDN] [SSO]
• Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 (Cap 322), section 16(1)(a)(ii) (Para 46) [CDN] [SSO]
• Rules of Court 2014, Order 110 rule 1(2)(ca) (Para 43)
• Rules of Court 2014, Order 110 rule 1(2)(a)(i) (Para 43)
• Rules of Court 2014, Order 110 rule 1(2)(b)(i) (Para 43)
• Rules of Court 2014, Order 110 rule 7(1) (Para 43)
• Rules of Court 2014, Order 12 rule 7(1) (Para 46)

Source Documents

• Original Judgment — Singapore Courts
• Archived Copy (PDF) — Litt Law CDN
• View in judgment: "HTL has not paid these invoices...."
• View in judgment: "Our clients reject the jurisdiction of..."
• View in judgment: "Accordingly, the SICC has jurisdiction pursuant..."
• View in judgment: "Roll acted reasonably in its duty..."
• View in judgment: "HTL pay damages to Roll for..."

This article analyses [2023] SGHCI 5 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.