Can a contractor claim for his balance retention sum after the defects liability period (“DLP”) has expired, without the certificate of making good defects (“CMGD”) being issued yet? Continue reading “Release retention after dlp, but no cmgd?”
The Singapore Government has recently passed a law to provide temporary relief to contractors affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdowns, restrictions arising from it (the “COVID-19 event”). This is the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act 2020 (the “Act”), which deals with a number of topics including construction contracts. Continue reading “THE SINGAPORE COVID-19 SOLUTION FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS”
by Low Kian Seng
Continuing from my previous post on the impact of COVID-19 and MCO on construction contracts, this post discusses the doctrine of frustration. Continue reading “COVID 19 & MOVEMENT CONTROL ORDER II – FRUSTRATION”
by Low Kian Seng
This post discusses the possible impact of COVID-19 and MCO on construction contracts.
This final part of the Cubic Puzzle series highlights further confusion arising from the Cubic case, due to discrepancies between the principles enunciated by the FC and their purported application to the facts. Continue reading “THE CUBIC PUZZLE & LIQUIDATED DAMAGES III – MORE CONFUSION”
Following the Cubic Puzzle I, this post highlights the confusion over what is the test to decide if the agreed amount payable on breach (“damages clause amount”) is “reasonable compensation” under section 75, Contracts Act 1950. Continue reading “THE CUBIC PUZZLE & LIQUIDATED DAMAGES II – THE PROPORTIONALITY CONFUSION”
The Federal Court revisited section 75 of the Contracts Act 1950 in a recent case. This may have an impact on the liquidated damages clauses in construction contracts. Continue reading “THE CUBIC PUZZLE & LIQUIDATED DAMAGES I”
In two recent Court of Appeal (“CA”) cases, the sub-contractor was successful in claiming against the employer for payment of work done. The sub-contractor was allowed to leapfrog over the main contractor, and won its claim direct against the employer. Continue reading “LEAPFROGGING SUB-CONTRACT CLAIMS”
On 6 November 2017, the Federal Court in View Esteem Sdn Bhd v Bina Puri Holdings Bhd widened the grounds on which an adjudication decision can be stayed, to include “clear errors” and “justice of the individual case”. As a result, there is now less certainty whether a successful claimant would be able to enforce the adjudication decision.
On 6 November 2017, the Federal Court made a landmark decision that changed what was thought to be established law under the Construction Industry Payment And Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA”). The decision was delivered in the case of View Esteem Sdn Bhd v Bina Puri Holdings Bhd. The decision significantly affected two areas – (a) jurisdiction of an adjudicator vis-à-vis the payment response; and (b) stay of an adjudication decision. This post shall address the first area, leaving the second area to a subsequent post.