See Kian Teck v SG-Bogen Pte Ltd

Chan Seng Onn J:

[3] Turning to the plaintiff’s claim for the breach of the Oral JVA, I note that the final contract sum of the Project that has been paid to the defendant stands at $1,738,071.54. In order to satisfy the legal burden in relation to his claim, the plaintiff has produced invoices and vouchers in relation to the various payments he has made to subcontractors. I also note that a number of subcontractors and the Project Engineer of the Project have given evidence at the trial for the plaintiff on having received payments from the plaintiff. It is also uncontroversial that the relevant works had been done by the subcontractors in relation to the Project. Therefore, with the exception of the works done in relation to the Timber Ceiling (“Timber Ceiling works”), which has been a point of dispute in this action, the plaintiff has established a prima facie case that the payments as set out in the invoices, vouchers and affidavit evidence of the subcontractors had been made by him to the subcontractors. In any case, I note that the defendant did not dispute the authenticity of the invoices and vouchers adduced by the plaintiff within the window provided to it under O 27 rr 4(1)-(2) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, Rev Ed 2014).

[4] I now turn to the payment invoice in relation to the Timber Ceiling works. At the trial, the defendant called Mr Ong Guan Kiat (“Mr Ong”), the sole proprietor of Do Renovation Contractor, as its witness to testify that Do Renovation Contractor, the subcontractor who purportedly issued the invoice in relation to the Timber Ceiling works, did not perform the said works. To that end, Mr Ong gave evidence that the plaintiff had asked him to provide his letterhead for the preparation of an invoice for the Timber Ceiling works and produced in Court an audio recording of a conversation between himself and the plaintiff that suggested that Mr Ong had not performed the Timber Ceiling works and the plaintiff was coercing Mr Ong to give favourable evidence in Court. Notwithstanding the fact that the aforementioned audio recording was only a portion of the entire conversation between the plaintiff and Mr Ong, I am of the view that the defendant has adduced sufficient evidence to satisfy me that the Timber Ceiling works were not performed by Do Renovation Contractor.

[5] Be that as it may, it is clear from the evidence of Mr Thng Kim Hock, a former senior maintenance executive of the SICC that the Timber Ceiling works (and all the works in relation to the Project) have been fully completed. Therefore, while the plaintiff will not be able to claim the amount set out in the invoice by Do Renovation Contractor in the absence of proof as to its authenticity, he would still be able to claim the value of the Timber Ceiling works. In this regard, I note that one “Choon Sian Wei” had apparently received $190,000 for the Timber Ceiling works. A bill record showing the record of this payment was adduced as an exhibit in Court during the trial. Having regard to the value of the Timber, I am of the view that $190,000 would fairly represent the value of the payments made by the plaintiff in relation to the Timber Ceiling works. I therefore allow the plaintiff to recover this amount as expenses incurred in relation to the Timber Ceiling works (see Annex A: plaintiff’s expenses for the computation of the plaintiff’s expenses).

[6] Having analysed the expenses of the defendant, I find that the defendant had established through affidavit evidence, invoices and vouchers that it had incurred $483,369.34 as expenses in relation to the Project (see Annex B: defendant’s expenses for the computation of the defendant’s expenses). The plaintiff accepted that most of these expenses were incurred in relation to the Project. I have disallowed a claim by the defendant for certain worker expenses that were not proved to be linked to the Project. I have also disallowed the expenses arising from the provision of a vehicle for Mr Chua Yuen Shen (“Mr Chua”) and a 10 year warranty, as the defendant has not been able to substantiate with evidence what exactly these expenses entailed. I note that the plaintiff has suggested that the defendant’s claim for purchase of Timber from Huang Huat Timber Trading Pte Ltd (“Huang Huat”) should not be allowed as the defendant has not been able correlate the invoices from Huang Huat with its claim. The invoices from Huang Huat for both plywood and Timber purchased by the defendant in relation to the Project cumulatively amount to $104,365.62 (see computation in Annex C: Huang Huat invoices). I allow the defendant to claim the whole amount as it is clear on the face of the invoices that the Timber and plywood were delivered to the site of the Project during the period when the Project was in progress. I highlight, for completeness, that there is no double-counting of the defendant’s expenses for plywood in relation to the “Temporary Hoarding and Lighting”.

[7] As regards the Skylight works for the golfing office of the SICC, I find that these works are also covered by the profit sharing arrangement under the Oral JVA. Given that the Skylight works were done in SICC on the instruction of one Ms Vivian Heng of RSP Architects, who were the architects and civil and structural engineers of the Project, with the same team of workers onsite for the Project, on a balance, the Skylight works were part of the Project. In any case, I note that the letter from the defendant’s solicitors dated 11 March 2013 did not exclude the Skylight works as part of the Project.