Case studies of construction disputes on SOP act

• Main Author: Lim, Ming Han
• Other Authors: Wong Wai Fan
• Format: Final Year Project
• Language: English
• Published: 2016
• Subjects: DRNTU::Engineering
• Online Access: http://hdl.handle.net/10356/67914
• Institution: Nanyang Technological University

This Final Year Project (FYP) studied the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payments (SOP) Act, in particular, on the Payment Claim aspect. In the past 10 years, the problems of the validity of payment claims as well as the manner in which they are served to respondents have arose many times and caused confusion to both adjudicators and well as judges when passing their adjudication determination or verdicts. This FYP will analyse various sections and subsections, in particular, Section 15 of the regulation together with several case studies to understand the problems behind disputes and the reasons why judgments were made in court. The cases of Lee Wee Lick Terence v Chua Say Eng (“Terence”) as well as Sungdo Engineering & Construction (S) Pte Ltd v Italcor Pte Ltd (“SVI”) were used as the two main case studies for this report. In both case studies, the validity of payment claim were pivotal issues which had the judges review the adjudicator’s decision. The difference, however, was that the payment claim in Terence was ruled as valid by the judge but the payment claim in the form of a letter in SVI was ruled as invalid. The writer quoted sections from the judges’ ruing and after digesting several references and materials had analysis for the reasons behind the verdict and his own views certain legislations of the SOP Act.