Jurong Readymix Concrete v Crescendas: Defective Concrete & Premature Formwork Removal Dispute

In a suit before the High Court of Singapore on 7 April 2005, Jurong Readymix Concrete Pte Ltd sued Crescendas Pte Ltd for $247,856.34 for ready-mix concrete supplied. Crescendas counterclaimed, alleging breach of contract and negligence due to the supply of slow-setting concrete, leading to demolition and reconstruction of columns, and sought $352,475.41 in damages. The court found in favor of Jurong Readymix on its claim and granted interlocutory judgment for Crescendas on the counterclaim, with damages to be assessed, subject to qualifications regarding the cause of the column defects and the reasonableness of Crescendas' actions.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for the plaintiff on its claim; interlocutory judgment for the defendant on the counterclaim with damages to be assessed, subject to qualifications.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment reserved

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

High Court case between Jurong Readymix Concrete and Crescendas concerning defective concrete supply and premature formwork removal, resulting in a counterclaim for damages.

1.7 Decision Date

6 April 2005

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Jurong Readymix Concrete Pte Ltd	Plaintiff	Corporation	Judgment for Plaintiff	Won	Joseph Liow of Straits Law Practice LLC Richard Tan of Straits Law Practice LLC
Crescendas Pte Ltd (formerly known as Tavica Design Pte Ltd)	Defendant	Corporation	Interlocutory Judgment for Defendant	Partial	Karam Singh Parmar of Tan Kok Quan Partnership Yong Boon On of Tan Kok Quan Partnership

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Lai Siu Chiu	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Joseph Liow	Straits Law Practice LLC
Richard Tan	Straits Law Practice LLC
Karam Singh Parmar	Tan Kok Quan Partnership
Yong Boon On	Tan Kok Quan Partnership

4. Facts

Jurong Readymix Concrete supplied ready-mix Grade 40 concrete to Crescendas for a construction project.
Crescendas discovered that test cubes from the concrete delivered on 12 and 13 July 2002 were still 'green' after 24 hours.
Ng Kin Choy Gary from Jurong Readymix advised Crescendas to allow more time for the concrete to harden before removing formwork.
Crescendas removed formwork prematurely, leading to chunks of concrete falling off columns.
Tan Meng Liang, a project engineer, expressed concerns about hidden cracks and loss of compaction in the columns.
Core samples revealed cracks in some columns, leading to a decision to demolish and reconstruct them.
The demolition and reconstruction of the columns caused a delay in the project's completion.

5. Formal Citations

Jurong Readymix Concrete Pte Ltd v Crescendas Pte Ltd (formerly known as Tavica Design Pte Ltd), Suit 18/2004, [2005] SGHC 67

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2001-10-30	Letter of award issued for the project
2001-11-01	Project commencement date
2001-12-31	Original project completion date
2002-02-18	Purchase order issued for concrete supply
2002-03-01	Construction work commenced
2002-07-12	Plaintiff delivered ready-mix concrete to the site
2002-07-13	Plaintiff delivered ready-mix concrete to the site
2002-07-13	Defendant discovered test cubes were still 'green'
2002-07-14	Defendant allowed formwork removal
2002-07-15	Defendant approved removal of formwork for columns cast with concrete from the batch of 13 July 2002
2002-07-16	Formwork for columns 1/E and 2/E were removed
2002-07-16	Consultants expressed concerns about the failure of columns to set properly
2002-07-18	Plaintiff took core samples from column 5/B and discovered cracks
2002-07-19	Approval given for coring tests
2002-07-22	Plaintiff recommended column 5/B be demolished
2002-07-23	Defendant replied to plaintiff’s request
2002-07-25	Site meeting regarding tests for core samples
2002-07-26	Column 2/E ordered to be demolished and reconstructed
2002-07-30	Inspection of remaining 12 core samples
2002-07-31	Defendant informed plaintiff it would demolish five columns
2002-08-02	Plaintiff informed defendant it would be more expedient to demolish the last seven columns immediately
2002-08-03	Defendant requested plaintiff to return the core samples
2002-08-15	Plaintiff claimed defendant had orally agreed to pay for demolition and reconstruction of the last seven columns
2002-08-16	Andrew informed the plaintiff that Fukang engaged AL Technologies to do coring tests for the last seven columns
2002-08-20	Core samples showed cracks
2002-08-20	Defendant denied plaintiff's claim
2002-08-23	Plaintiff’s solicitors requested that the plaintiff’s expert be allowed to view the core samples taken by the defendant
2002-08-24	Demolition of the last seven columns commenced
2002-09-14	Defendant re-erected all 14 columns
2003-04-09	Project completed
2003-05-23	Plaintiff filed suit
2005-04-07	Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff breached the contract by supplying concrete that did not meet the required standards, but the defendant's actions contributed to the damages.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Failure to supply concrete of good and merchantable quality
  - Failure to meet consultant's requirements
Defective Works
- Outcome: The court determined that the defective works were caused by a combination of the plaintiff's supply of defective concrete and the defendant's premature removal of formwork.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Defective concrete supply
  - Premature removal of formwork
Damages
- Outcome: The court applied the rule on remoteness of damages, finding the plaintiff liable for some costs but not for losses that could have been avoided by the defendant.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Remoteness of damages
  - Causation
Delay in Completion
- Outcome: The court found that the delay in completion was primarily due to the defendant's poor project planning, not solely the plaintiff's actions.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Disruption of construction sequence
  - Liquidated damages

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract
Negligence

10. Practice Areas

Construction Law
Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Hadley v Baxendale	Court of Exchequer	Yes	(1854) 9 Exch 341	England and Wales	Cited for the rule on remoteness of damages in contract law.
Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1949] 2 KB 528	England and Wales	Cited for interpreting and restating the rule on remoteness of damages.
Koufos v C Czarnikow Ltd (The Heron II)	House of Lords	Yes	[1969] 1 AC 350	United Kingdom	Cited for interpreting and restating the rule on remoteness of damages.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 40 of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Ready-mix concrete
Formwork
Slow setting
Test cubes
Compressive strength
Core samples
Demolition
Reconstruction
Liquidated damages
Grade 40 concrete
Windsor probe test
Novus actus interveniens

15.2 Keywords

concrete
formwork
construction
breach of contract
negligence
damages
delay
Singapore
High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Defective Works	80
Construction Law	75
Breach of Contract	70
Delay in completion	70
Contract Law	65
Damages	60

16. Subjects

Construction Dispute
Contract Law
Negligence