Ho Pak Kim Realty v Revitech: Contractual Terms & Building Contract Dispute

In a building contract dispute, Ho Pak Kim Realty Co Pte Ltd (plaintiff) sued Revitech Pte Ltd (defendant) in the High Court of Singapore, with Lai Siu Chiu J presiding on 13 November 2007. The plaintiff claimed for balance of certified sums, undervaluation and additional works, while the defendant counterclaimed for liquidated damages, overpayments, and back charges. The primary legal issue was whether certain documents formed part of the contract. The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim and awarded interlocutory judgment to the defendant on its counterclaim, finding the plaintiff's evidence unreliable and that the contract documents were binding.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's claim dismissed; interlocutory judgment for the defendant on the counterclaim.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Building contract dispute between Ho Pak Kim Realty and Revitech over contractual terms and construction of apartments. Claim dismissed; interlocutory judgment for defendant.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Revitech Pte LtdDefendantCorporationInterlocutory JudgmentWon
Ho Pak Kim Realty Co Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationClaim DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lai Siu ChiuJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Tito Shane IsaacTito Isaac & Co
Justin Chan Yew LoongTito Isaac & Co
Christopher Chong Chi ChuinLegal Solutions LLC
Kelvin Teo Wei XianLegal Solutions LLC

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiff was appointed main contractor for construction of apartments for defendant.
  2. Dispute arose over whether certain documents were part of the building contract.
  3. Plaintiff claimed for balance of certified sums, undervaluation, and additional works.
  4. Defendant counterclaimed for liquidated damages, overpayments, and back charges.
  5. Plaintiff alleged that the contract documents were for 'bank purposes' only.
  6. Defendant asserted that the contract documents were binding on the parties.
  7. Plaintiff changed its position multiple times regarding the applicability of contract documents.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Ho Pak Kim Realty Co Pte Ltd v Revitech Pte Ltd, Suit 36/2006, [2007] SGHC 194

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Defendant issued letter of award to plaintiff.
Plaintiff obtained Permit to Commence Work.
First site meeting held.
Second site meeting held.
ACME issued Architect’s Direction to plaintiff requiring submission of a ‘catch-up’ programme.
ACME issued a warning letter to the plaintiff.
Plaintiff commenced work in late March.
Collapse of a boundary wall due to plaintiff's excavation works.
ACME issued a second Architect’s Direction to the plaintiff to rectify the affected portions of the boundary wall.
ACME wrote to the defendant expressing concern with the lack of progress at site and with Ho’s conduct.
ACME issued the first termination certificate to the plaintiff.
Defendant accepted the plaintiff’s breakdown of work description.
Contract documents signed.
Supplemental Agreement made between the parties.
Plaintiff submitted a proper Master programme to ACME.
Nguyen wrote to the plaintiff stating that the plaintiff’s timelines for completion of certain works were impossible to achieve.
Site meetings held between February 2004 and March 2004.
Original extended completion date; project not completed.
Further extension of time requested by Ho.
ACME issued a delay certificate.
Plaintiff contended that it completed the project.
Last interim certificate issued by ACME to the plaintiff.
Defendant contended that completion was the date of issue of the TOP.
Defendant paid the plaintiff $50,000.00.
Plaintiff raised its assertion that it would only carry out M&E works necessary to obtain the TOP.
ACME issued its completion certificate.
ACME issued a second termination certificate to the plaintiff.
Plaintiff filed writ of summons with statement of claim.
Ho returned the keys.
First tranche of trial heard before Sundaresh Menon JC.
Ho claimed volume I of the contract documents did not apply to the plaintiff.
Counsel for the plaintiff confirmed volume I still applied.
Second tranche of claim heard before Lai Siu Chiu J.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff had breached the contract.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Contractual Terms
    • Outcome: The court determined that volumes I and II of the contract documents formed part of the building contract between the parties.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Estoppel
    • Outcome: The court found that if estoppel could be pleaded, it could only be raised by the defendant.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Construction Law
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
No cited cases

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Building Contract
  • Contract Documents
  • Letter of Award
  • Supplemental Agreement
  • Termination Certificate
  • Progress Claims
  • Interim Certificates
  • Liquidated Damages
  • Performance Bond
  • Master Programme

15.2 Keywords

  • building contract
  • construction
  • contractual terms
  • dispute
  • Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Construction Law90
Building Contract85
Contract Law80
Breach of Contract75
Misrepresentation60
Estoppel50
Damages40

16. Subjects

  • Construction Dispute
  • Contract Law