Case studies of construction dispute on SOP Act
Resolution of construction disputes used to be a lengthy and often costly process as many legal firms were unfamiliar with the issues pertaining to construction matters. As a result, the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment (SOP) bill was passed in the parliament on 16th November...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Final Year Project |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2019
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/10356/78044 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Nanyang Technological University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | Resolution of construction disputes used to be a lengthy and often costly process as many legal firms
were unfamiliar with the issues pertaining to construction matters. As a result, the Building and
Construction Industry Security of Payment (SOP) bill was passed in the parliament on 16th November
2004 to address this specific problem. The SOP Act was later enacted on 1st April 2005, seeking to
accelerate cash flow by launching a quick and relatively low cost adjudication procedure to mediate
payment disputes.
This project reviewed the practice of Security of Payment (SOP) Act as a legislation through the form
of in-depth analysis of the Act itself and recent case studies related to said Act. The focus was with
regards to Payment Response and Payment Claim.
The cases of Audi Construction Pte Ltd vs Kian Hiap Construction Pte Ltd [2017] and Bintai Kidenko
Pte Ltd vs Samsung C&T Corporation [2017] were selected as these are current cases that provide an
expansive coverage on the aspects of Payment Claim and Payment Response issues. |
|---|