|
Sandy Island Pte Ltd v Thio Keng Thay [2020] SGCA 86 Decision Date: 22 May 2020 INTRODUCTION
In my prevous post, I wrote about Thio Keng Thay v Sandy Island Pte Ltd [2019] SGHC 175 (“Sandy Island HC”). The case involved a dispute between the purchaser and developer of a bungalow. The purchaser sued the developer for the costs of rectification of defects. Some of the defects were admitted by the developer. However, the developer argued that it should not be liable the cost of rectification as the purchaser had breached the defect liability clause in the sale and purchase agreement (“SPA”) by imposing unreasonable conditions and refusing to grant access. The High Court (“HC”) disagreed with the developer’s contention. The HC determined that the purchaser’s breach of the defect liability clause did not exclude his right to claim for damages for the defects. The developer appealed to the Court of Appeal (“CA”) on this point but failed. The CA published its decision on 22 May 2020 in Sandy Island Pte Ltd v Thio Keng Thay [2020] SGCA 86 (“Sandy Island CA”). In its decision the CA expounded on the purpose and nature of defects liability clauses as well as the impact of such clauses on the parties’ rights and obligations. In this post, I will discuss the key aspects of the CA’s decision.
0 Comments
Thio Keng Thay v Sandy Island Pte Ltd [2019] SGHC 175
Decision Date: 29 July 2019 INTRODUCTION This case arose from a dispute between the owner and developer of a bungalow house on Sandy Island, Sentosa. The owner, who was the plaintiff in the action, sued the developer for costs of rectification of defects. The developer disputed the claim and counterclaimed against the owner for libel. At the trial; some of the defects raised by the owner were admitted by the developer to be defects. However, the developer argued that it should not be held liable for the costs of rectification of such defects because the owner had breached the defect liability clause in the Sale and Purchase Agreement (“SPA”) by imposing unreasonable conditions on the developer and refusing to grant access to carry out rectification works. In its decision; the High Court clarified the extent of the legal rights and remedies of an owner who had refused to allow contractors to return to the project to rectify defective works. In this post; I will explain and examine this aspect of the High Court’s decision. Audi Construction Pte Ltd v Kian Hiap Construction Pte Ltd
[2018] SGCA 4 In July 2017, I had touched on the High Court’s decision of Audi Construction Pte Ltd v Kian Hiap Construction Pte Ltd [2017] SGHC 165 where the High Court decided that a payment claim must be served on the date specified for service of a payment claim in the construction contract even if the specified date fell on a Sunday or Public Holiday. A belated Happy New Year! to everyone.
Yet another year has passed; another completed revolution around the Sun. Everywhere and everyone - hopes for a better year ahead; new wishes; new resolutions; new ambitions and projects. “Oh, you can kiss me on a Monday
A Monday, a Monday is very, very good Or you can kiss me on a Tuesday A Tuesday, a Tuesday, in fact I wish you would Ang Cheng Guan Construction Pte Ltd v Corporate Residence Pte Ltd
[2017] SGHC 09 This case arises from an application to set aside an Adjudication Review Determination. It is of interest because it addresses two issues for the first time; namely – whether an adjudication review is limited to only the issues raised by the respondent; and whether an adjudication review determination can be set aside if the adjudicator misdirected himself in a point of law. Arbitration in Singapore enters an exciting phase with the official release of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre’s new rules (SIAC Rules 2016) which will come into effect on 1 August 2016.
The SEa view condominium dispute: who are independent contractors and why is this important14/6/2016
THE SEA VIEW CONDOMINIUM DISPUTE:
WHO ARE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS AND WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT. Introduction The long running legal battle between the MCST of the Sea View Condominium (MCST) and the Developers, Main Contractors, Architects and M&E Consultants of the development is keenly watched and known to many in the construction and real estate industry. Happy New Year!
2015 must have been a busy year for construction lawyers and professionals involved in adjudication matters. Dear Readers,
I will be giving a talk on the Singapore Institute of Architects' Articles and Conditions of Contract (SIA Conditions) on 22 September 2015. Dear Readers,
I will be giving a three hour presentation on issues relating to delays in engineering & construction contracts on 17 August 2015. One of the recent cases I had highlighted in my recent talk on the SIA Conditions of Contract (held on 15 April 2015) was the Singapore Court of Appeal’s (CA) decision in Chin Ivan v H P Construction & Engineering Pte Ltd [2015] SGCA 14.
Dear readers,
I will be giving a talk on the topics of delay and liquidated damages in engineering & construction contracts on 11 March 2015. Dear readers,
I wish everyone a very happy and prosperous year of the Goat! May everyone have an abundance of good health, happiness and wealth in the year ahead. |
ICELAW
This section of my website contains summaries and commentaries of judgments and other developments relevant to infrastructure, construction, engineering and construction law. Hence the name, ICE LAW. ICE LAW is provided for information only. It should not be relied on or taken as legal advice. |
RSS Feed
js.tan@tytolaw.com |
Make an appointment
|
(65) 6732 2090 |