[2015] SGHC 226

“maturely. It was not disputed that such a breach was a ground for setting aside an adjudication determination; this is consistent with the decision in Newcon Builders Pte Ltd v Sino New Steel Pte Ltd [2015] SGHC 226, in which the court held at [45] that an adjudication application filed prematurely is invalid and entit”

“n days under s 13(3)(a) of SOPA, the same principle applied equally to adjudication applications lodged before the same period. This was made clear in Newcon Builders Pte Ltd v Sino New Steel Pte Ltd [2015] SGHC 226 (“Newcon Builders”) at [45] where Quentin Loh J held that premature adjudication applications would inva”

“(f) In Newcon Builders Pte Ltd v Sino New Steel Pte Ltd [2015] SGHC 226 (at [81]), the payment response amount was negative S$149,587.18.”

“In Newcon Builders Pte Ltd v Sino New Steel Pte Ltd [2015] SGHC 226 (“Newcon Builders”), the issue before Quentin Loh J was whether an adjudication application which had been filed before the entitlement of the applicant to do so had arisen was a breach of a mandator”

“ere there is evidence that the correct form is a document which both parties are aware of and recognise, and would normally expect to be included: see Newcon Builders Pte Ltd v Sino New Steel Pte Ltd [2015] SGHC 226 at [59], referring to Modern Building Wales Ltd v Limmer & Trinidad Co Ltd [1975] 1 WLR 1281 (“Modern Bu”