Judgment Header
W Y Steel Construction Pte Ltd v Osko Pte Ltd [2013] SGCA 32
Court DecisionSGCA
[2013] SGCA 32
[2013] SGCA 32
Court of Appeal of Singapore30 Apr 2013Civil Appeal No 108 of 2012
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Subsequent treatment
Cited in 7 later decisions. No negative treatment detected.
How this case connects
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Cited by
7Later cases and laws citing this decision
“djudicator to conduct a documents-only Adjudication without the need to hear oral evidence. [72] I recall the decision of the Court of Appeal Singapore in WY Steel Construction Pte Ltd v Osko Pte Ltd [2013] SGCA 32 where Justice Sundaresh Menon CJ, with respect to compliance by the Adjudicator of the rules of natural j”
- Cited1. ) SQA Builders Sdn Bhd v 1. ) Luxor Holdings Sdn Bhd (WA-24C-133-11/2016 & WA-24C-151-12/2016)Case
“ayment Claim. 26 The importance of the filing of payment response was set out by his Lordship Sundaresh Menon CJ in the Singapore Court of Appeal case of WY Steel Construction Pte Ltd v Osko Pte Ltd [2013] SGCA 32. This case was quoted in the Malaysian Court of Appeal case of View Esteem Sdn Bhd v Bina Puri Holdings [2”
“added) 36 [68] See also Bouygues (UK) Ltd v Dahl-Jensen (UK) Ltd [2000] BLR 522, Wimbledon Construction Company 2000 Ltd v Vago [2005] EWHC 1086 TCC and W Y Steel Construction Pte Ltd v Osko Pte Ltd [2013] SGCA 32. [69] The Federal Court in View Estem Sdn Bhd v Bina Puri Holdings Berhad [2018] 2 MLJ 22, at paragraphs 7”
“ns. Reference was made to Niko Bioenergy Sdn Bhd v. Rh Balingian Palm Oil MilL Sdn Bhd [2018] 1 LNS 1621; Brodyn Pty Ltd v Davenport [2004] NSWCA 394; and WY Steel Construction Pte Ltd v Osko Pte Ltd [2013] SGCA 32 to support this ground. The basis for STD’s contention that Jeks’s financial position is precarious is th”
“UDA Holdings Bhd v. Bisraya Construction Sdn Bhd & Anor and Another Case [2015] 5 CLJ 527 View Esteem Sdn Bhd v Bina Puri Holdings Bhd [2018] 2 MLJ 22 W Y Steel Construction Pte Ltd v Osko Pte Ltd [2013] SGCA 32 Wimbledon Construction Company 2000 Ltd v Vago [2005] EWHC 1086 TCC Legislation referred to: Companies Act 2”
Show 2 moreShow fewer
“Tan Ngee Hong Construction Sdn Bhd and another case [2017] 1 LNS 177; [2017] MLRHU 144 View Esteem Sdn Bhd v Bina Puri Holdings Sdn Bhd [2018] 2 MLJ 22 W Y Steel Construction Pte Ltd v Osko Pte Ltd [2013] SGCA 32 46 Legislation referred to: Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012, ss 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13,”
- FollowedPWC Corporation Sdn bhd v Ireka Engineering & Construction Sdn Bhd (WA-24C-107-06/2017 (No. 2))Case
“AA or otherwise void for illegality. 13 [28] Our position is no different from the Singapore’s position as expressed by Sundaresh Menon CJ in the case of WY Steel Construction Pte Ltd v Osko Pte Ltd [2013] SGCA 32 at paragraph [56] as follows: “[56] Ordinarily, if an application to set aside an adjudication determinati”
Authorities cited
0Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
No outgoing citations detected.
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
Case Metadata
Case No: Civil Appeal No 108 of 2012
Case Metadata
Court: Court of Appeal of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2013-04-30
Something wrong on this page?
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.