Premature service of payment claims under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act: Audi Construction Pte Ltd v Kian Hiap Construction Pte Ltd
In Audi Construction Pte Ltd v Kian Hiap Construction Pte Ltd, the Singapore Court of Appeal considereda payment claim to have been validly served although it was served earlier thanthe contractually stipulated date. This was because the service of the paymentclaim was “effective” only from the cont...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
2018
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/2839 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/4797/viewcontent/Premature_service_of_payment_claims__for_repositories_.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Singapore Management University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | In Audi Construction Pte Ltd v Kian Hiap Construction Pte Ltd, the Singapore Court of Appeal considereda payment claim to have been validly served although it was served earlier thanthe contractually stipulated date. This was because the service of the paymentclaim was “effective” only from the contractually stipulated date, and theclaimant had had a “good reason” to serve the payment claim early. This notecritically examines the reasoning in Audi vis-à-vis the existing law, the principleof freedom of contract, and the intentions of the parties in that case. In theabsence of future judicial elaboration on the “effective service” and “goodreason” doctrines, there is a risk that, in future, respondents may draw onthese doctrines to delay or frustrate the attempts of claimants to recoverpayments rightly due to them. Moreover, given that the Court had found that thedoctrine of estoppel would have operated in favour of the Claimant anyway, thecreation of the “effective service” and “good reason” principles was notnecessary. |
|---|