All-Trade Construction v Lo Geok Kwee: Building Contract Dispute over Payment & Parol Evidence
In All-Trade Construction Pte Ltd v Lo Geok Kwee, the High Court of Singapore addressed a dispute arising from a building contract. All-Trade Construction sued Lo Geok Kwee to recover $460,907.58 outstanding for works certified by the architect. Lo Geok Kwee claimed a separate agreement existed and disputed the amount due. The court dismissed Lo Geok Kwee's appeal, upholding the order for conditional leave to defend and rejecting her application for an extension of time, finding the architect's certificates enforceable and the parol evidence inadmissible.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Defendant's appeal dismissed; application for extension of time dismissed; conditional leave to defend upheld.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Building contract dispute. Court rejects owner's parol evidence claim of separate agreement, enforcing architect's certificates for payment to contractor.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All-Trade Construction Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Conditional Leave to Defend Upheld | Partial | |
| Lo Geok Kwee | Defendant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Judith Prakash | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Syn Kok Kay | Patrick Chin, Syn & Co |
| R Manoj | Patrick Chin, Syn & Co |
| Louis Lim | Chee & Teo |
4. Facts
- Lo Geok Kwee contracted with All-Trade Construction for construction of a building.
- The contract was based on the SIA Conditions of Building Contract (Lump Sum Contract).
- The contract price was a lump sum of $1,680,000.
- The architect certified $1,242,118.05 of work completed.
- Lo Geok Kwee paid $781,210.47, leaving a balance of $460,907.58 outstanding.
- All-Trade Construction commenced action to recover the outstanding sum.
- Lo Geok Kwee claimed a separate agreement existed for provisional items.
5. Formal Citations
- All-Trade Construction Pte Ltd v Lo Geok Kwee, Suit 1322/1999, [2000] SGHC 120
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Architects appointed All-Trade Construction as main contractor. | |
| Architects certified $1,242,118.05 of work completed. | |
| All-Trade Construction commenced action to recover $460,907.58. | |
| Assistant registrar ordered conditional leave to defend. | |
| Plaintiffs filed an appeal against the assistant registrar`s order. | |
| Defendant filed an appeal against the order for conditional leave. | |
| Defendant applied for leave to amend her defence and counterclaim. | |
| Defendant applied for an extension of time to comply with the order of court dated 1 March 2000. | |
| Plaintiffs entered judgment in default. | |
| Court dismissed defendant's appeal and application for extension of time. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Admissibility of Parol Evidence
- Outcome: The court held that parol evidence was inadmissible to contradict the written contract.
- Category: Substantive
- Enforcement of Architect's Certificates
- Outcome: The court held that the architect's certificates were enforceable and the defendant was obligated to pay the certified amount.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Construction Law
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lojan Properties Pte Ltd v Tropicon Contractors Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1991] 1 SLR 80 | Singapore | Confirmed that an employer is obliged to pay the amount certified by the architect unless they have a certified cross claim. |
| Aurum Building Services (Pte) Ltd v Greatearth Construction Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR 330 | Singapore | Followed Lojan Properties, holding that a contractor must pay the certified amount first and pursue the counterclaim separately. |
| China Construction (South Pacific) Development Co Pte Ltd v Leisure Park (Singapore) Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR 622 | Singapore | Established that architect's interim certificates issued under the SIA Conditions are prima facie to be honoured as they enjoy `temporary finality`. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Building Contract
- SIA Conditions
- Architect's Certificate
- Parol Evidence Rule
- Lump Sum Contract
- Conditional Leave to Defend
15.2 Keywords
- building contract
- SIA conditions
- architect's certificate
- parol evidence
- construction dispute
- summary judgment
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Contract Law | 80 |
| Building and Construction Contracts | 75 |
| Construction Law | 75 |
| Summary Judgement | 70 |
| Civil Procedure | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Construction Dispute
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure