Chye Heng Huat Engineering Pte Ltd v Concept Builders Pte Ltd

Woo Bih Li J:

[1] The plaintiff Chye Heng Huat Engineering Pte Ltd (“CHHE”) is in the business of fabrication and installation of steel fittings and general construction work. CHHE was the sub-contractor of the defendant Concept Builders Pte Ltd (“Concept Builders”) who was in turn the main contractor for the development of 18 double-storey strata bungalows. CHHE’s claim was for $390,257.93 being the outstanding payment for material supplied and installed under its various contracts with Concept Builders for the development.

[3] CHHE had applied for summary judgment of its claim. It was not successful before an assistant registrar. It then appealed and I allowed its appeal in that I granted judgment to it for $304,458.06 which was arrived at as follows: $390,257.93 less a sum of $85,799.87. I granted Concept Builders leave to defend for this sum of $85,799.87 on condition that it pay the sum into court or provide a bank guarantee for that sum, on terms acceptable to CHHE, by 4pm of 27 May 2010, failing which CHHE would be entitled to enter judgment for that sum as well.

[4] I set out my reasons below.

[5] The Writ of Summons was filed on 29 December 2009. The Defence was filed on 27 January 2010. However, the Defence was vague on the reason for not paying the sum claimed by CHHE. Para 3 of the Defence merely stated:

[8] She also exhibited a letter which Concept Builders wrote to its solicitors dated 22 March 2010 stating that “the building surveyor shall be giving his assessment to the rectification works of the rusty U-channel on the 01 April 2010”.

[9] The second affidavit for Concept Builders came from Halog Anthony Palitayan (“HAP”), its project manager. He exhibited an email dated 6 January 2010 from one owner at unit 45G about a rusting U-channel below glass railings on the third floor balcony.

[12] HAP then exhibited a report from Colsult Consultants which is an engineering firm dated 16 April 2010. That report stated that they had checked a typical unit at 45C and confirmed that “the ‘U’ channel supporting the 15mm thick tempered glass has rust stains…”. It stated that the U-channel at 45G did not have any visible signs of rust and they were told by Concept Builders’ supervisor that the U-channel at 45G was replaced with a galvanised one.

[13] The temporary occupation permit for the 18 units was issued on 21 July 2009. It was common ground that CHHE’s works would have been completed before then. Since 21 July 2009 up to the date of the hearing of the appeal before me on 18 May 2010, there were alleged complaints of rusting U-channels for five units only.

[17] First, as I mentioned above, the Defence was vague.

[18] Secondly, although Concept Builders had written to its solicitors on 22 March 2010 to say that the assessment of the building surveyor would be given on 1 April 2010, there was no such assessment from a building surveyor but a report by engineers. That report was dated 16 April 2010 and referred to an inspection done just one day earlier on 15 April 2010. I agreed with CHHE that this report was hastily conjured up. Significantly, that report did not refer to rusting U-channels for five units but only two, ie, 45C and 45G. Even then, the inspection was done only for 45C. It was not clear from the report whether the engineer had inspected 45G as well or had simply adopted information provided by Concept Builders.

[20] Accordingly, I granted Concept Builders leave to defend the claim for the remaining $85,799.87 on the condition mentioned above.