[2014] SGHC 142

“ific Construction & Development Pte Ltd [2013] 2 SLR 776, Admin Construction Pte Ltd v Vivaldi (S) Pte Ltd [2013] 3 SLR 609, YTL Construction (S) Pte Ltd v Balanced Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd [2014] SGHC 142 and LH Aluminium Industries Pte Ltd v Newcon Builders Pte Ltd [2015] 1 SLR 648 were no longer good law (”

“settled law that an adjudication determination can be set aside for the adjudication application being made out of time: see YTL Construction (S) Pte Ltd v Balanced Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd [2014] SGHC 142 at [43]–[49], UES Holdings Pte Ltd v Grouteam Pte Ltd [2016] 1 SLR 312 at [51], UES Holdings Pte Ltd v K”

“de the day on which it does so. The defendant noted that the adjudicator’s interpretation is consistent with the decision in YTL Construction (S) Pte Ltd v Balanced Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd [2014] SGHC 142 (“YTL”). Further, the defendant relied on s 50(a) of the Interpretation Act 1965 (2020 Rev Ed) (the “IA””

“In so far as MT relied on YTL Construction (S) Pte Ltd v Balanced Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd [2014] SGHC 142 (“YTL”) to support its interpretation, the Judge noted (see H P Construction (GD) at [10]), and we agreed, that the point was not argued there. In that case, the adjudication application was lodged a”

“cation would invalidate an adjudication determination because the timelines under SOPA were to be strictly followed: see eg, YTL Construction (S) Pte Ltd v Balanced Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd [2014] SGHC 142 at [48] (“YTL Construction”) and Grouteam (HC) at [43] and [51]. With regard to the last cited case, it”