1. Make a presentation on the case: Chua Say Eng v Lee Wee Lick Terence @ Li Weili Terence [2010] SGHC 333) and explain the supervisory powers of the court, if any, over the statutory adjudication process in Singapore under the SOP Act. Tutorial Group 2 Sub-Group 5: CHEN XIAOQING U097854A CHIN BO WEI, ANDREW U097892N LIN XUANYU U097858Y THIA CHIONG WEI U097886N YOSUA NG YU GUO U097852E
10. 3 Main Issues Validity of Payment Claim under the SOPA Whether the Payment Claim was served in accordance with the SOPA Whether the Payment Claim, if it had been served in accordance with the SOPA, was nevertheless served out of time.
11.
12.
13. Contractors can be bankrupt if they lack the cash flowMost judges do not want to express their view on such issues unless adjudicators are unfair and unreasonable
14.
15. the corporation failed to take account factors that ought to have been taken into account, or
20. 2nd issue: Whether the payment claim was served in accordance to SOPA? Defendant claimed that he did not receive the Payment Claim when it was served by the Plaintiff at his Residential Address. He argued that there is no evidence to show that he actually received the Payment Claim, no personal service of the Payment Claim is done as per required by the SOP, as plaintiff did not satisfy s 37(1) of the SOPA=> SOPA not exhaustive, can include other acts in for interpretation such as from the Interpretation Act. Plaintiff argued that he fulfilled the (1)(a)(ii) of the Interpretation Act (Cap. 1, 2002 Rev Ed), which states-- (ii) by leaving it at, or by sending it by pre-paid post to, the usual or last known address of the place of residence or business of the individual.
21. 3rd issue: Whether the payment claim was served out of time under SOPA? By reg 5(1) --- Where a contract does not contain any provision specifying the time at which a payment claim shall be served or by which such time may be determined, then a payment claim made under the contract shall be served by the last day of each month following the month in which the contract is made. If parliament had intended that there should be a limitation period, there could easily be a provision in the SOPA, but this is not the case as it would restrict claims on work done in previous months=> deem as unreasonable if the court were to do so. Finally, reg 5(1) clarifies that if the contract does not specify that a payment claim must be served by, on or after a specified day of the month, then the default position is that a payment claim must be served “by the last day of the month”.
22. Conclusion Payment claim should be made in clear language Must satisfy the requirement of ‘basic and essential’=> ie. Intention to be a payment claim
Hinweis der Redaktion
Adjudication is similar to arbitration, although there is a set timeframe within which the adjudicator must make a decision and parties are responsible for their own costs unless otherwise agreed. Decisions made in adjudication are binding.Adjudication is aimed at being faster and more cost effective and is commonly used in the construction industry to ensure payment and resolve other types of disputes.
Quoted from Amy Coney Barrett.
Question that arises. Since, decision made in adjudication are binding, is the court able to change that decision?Even if so, is the court able to exercise their supervisory power over adjudication process since this process is not part of court hearing.
As the Contract is silent on when a payment response should be served, s 11(1)(b) of the SOPA mandates that the payment response be served within 7 days after the payment claim is served. As the Payment Claim was served on 2 June 2010, the due date for the relevant payment response was 9 June 2010. It is common ground that the Defendant did not serve a payment response on the Plaintiff by 9 June 2010 or at all.
maintaining cash flow in the [construction] industry while disputes [are] settled via arbitration or court proceedings” by providing “a fast track procedure for an interim decision in respect of a disputed payment claim”. This policy would be frustrated if the court must invariably look into the parties’ arguments before the adjudicator
Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation [1947] 1 KB 223[1] is an English law case which set down the standard of unreasonableness of public body decisions which render them liable to be quashed on judicial review. This special sense is accordingly known as Wednesbury reasonableness.According to this case, court will only step in if the adjudicator’s decision fulfill these 3 requirements.
Relying on Sungdo, the Defendant contended that the Payment Claim was not a valid payment claim under the SOPA because the Plaintiff did not intend it to be a payment claim under the SOPA, and in any case, had not communicated such an intention to the Defendant.
![Make a presentation on the case: Chua Say Eng v Lee Wee Lick Terence @ Li Weili Terence [2010] SGHC 333) and explain the supervisory powers of the court, if any, over the statutory adjudication process in Singapore under the SOP Act. Tutorial Group 2 Sub-Group 5: CHEN XIAOQING U097854A CHIN BO WEI, ANDREW U097892N LIN XUANYU U097858Y THIA CHIONG WEI U097886N YOSUA NG YU GUO U097852E](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/tutorial4presentationver-3-110402091508-phpapp01/85/Tutorial4-presentation-ver-3-1-320.jpg)
![Definitions Adjudication ,[object Object]]()