Welcome to the 4th issue of the Construction & Arbitration update in 2016.

The Construction & Arbitration update is a compendium of commentaries produced and published by the Dentons Rodyk construction team on a weekly basis.

This issue includes:

• Application for leave to continue action against an insolvent defendant: A balancing act
• Clarifying the law on repeat claims and post-termination claims under the Security of Payment Act
• Is a lump sum contract a feature of a “design and build” contract?
• Upholding parties’ agreement to arbitrate and case management of claims against multiple defendants

We hope you enjoy our articles. Please sign up to be included in our mailing list if you wish to receive our newsletters directly in your mailbox.

Showing 1 - 4 of Total Results (4)
	Application for leave to continue action against an insolvent defendant: A balancing act June 30, 2016 The issue before the High Court was whether leave should be granted to the plaintiff to proceed with an action for breach of contract against an insolvent defendant. The court held that in deciding whether leave should be granted, it must balance the collective interest of the defendant’s general body of creditors against the relative hardship and injustice which may be experienced by the plaintiff.
	Clarifying the law on repeat claims and post-termination claims under the Security of Payment Act June 23, 2016 The Singapore High Court’s recent decision in Asplenium Land Pte Ltd v CKR Contract Services Pte Ltd [2016] SGHC 85 has perhaps finally put to bed the issue as to what constitutes a repeat claim that is prohibited under the Security of Payment Act (SOPA). The principle governing this issue is that any payment claim, even if “repeated” in more than one payment claim, can only be subjected to only one adjudication of its merits. The court also proceeded to consider what a determination on the merits constituted, in respect to whether a claim was repeated. Perhaps for the very first time, the Singapore High Court also had the opportunity to discuss the issue of whether post-termination claims fell within the ambit of the SOPA’s adjudication scheme for payment claims.
	Is a lump sum contract a feature of a “design and build” contract? June 23, 2016 Is a lump sum contract a feature of a "design and build" contract? This was the central issue that the High Court had to decide in the recent case of Goh Eng Lee Andy v Yeo Jin Kow [2016] SGHC 110. After examining the features and reasons behind “design and build” contracts, Judicial Commissioner (JC) Kannan Ramesh unequivocally held that a "design and build" contract, in the absence of any terms to the contrary, necessarily incorporates a lump sum contract.
	Upholding parties’ agreement to arbitrate and case management of claims against multiple defendants June 12, 2016 The appellant, Maybank Kim Eng Securities Pte Ltd (Kim Eng) had commenced an action against its customer and her husband-remisier. The High Court’s Assistant Registrar (AR) ordered a stay of proceedings against both the customer and her husband-remisier. On appeal to the High Court, Kim Eng did not appeal against the decision with respect to the customer. The issue on appeal was whether the court should exercise its case management powers to uphold the stay of proceedings against the customer’s husband-remisier as ordered by the AR, pending the resolution of the related arbitration between Kim Eng and its customer. The judge affirmed the AR’s exercise of the case management powers developed by the Court of Appeal in Tomolugen Holdings Ltd and another v Silica Investors Ltd and other appeals [2016] 1 SLR 373 (Tomolugen) and upheld the stay of proceedings, thus dismissing the appeal.