[2023] SGHC 210 [Singapore]
Cases Referenced:
- CRK Contract Services Pte Ltd. v. Asplenium Land Pte Ltd. [2015], [2015] 3 SLR 1041 [Singapore]
- 1L30G Pte Ltd. v. EQ Insurance Co. [2017], [2017] 5 SLR 1106 [Singapore]
- Arab Banking Corp. v. Boustead Singapore Ltd., [2016] 3 SLR 557 [Singapore]
- Sembcorp Marine Ltd. v. PPL Holdings Pte Ltd., [2013] 4 SLR 193 [Singapore]
Related Litigation:
None.
Parties:
• Subcontractor/Applicant - Chian Teck Realty Pte Ltd.
• Guarantor - Lonpac Insurance Bhd
• Contractor/Beneficiary - SDK Consortium
Underlying Transaction: Performance Bond to support work obligation.
LC: Performance Bond for SGD 1,123,152.55
Decision: The High Court of Singapore, Lee Seiu Kin, J., granted the injunction in so far as concerned the 29 July 2022 demand.
Note:
To support its work obligations, Chian Teck Realty Pte Ltd. (Subcontractor/Applicant), a Singapore reinforced concrete and precast specialist, applied for and caused Lonpac Insurance Bhd (Guarantor) to issue a SGD 1,123,152.55 performance bond in favour of SDK Consortium (Contractor/Beneficiary), the main contractor for a construction project (and consortium of three engineering companies). The bond value constituted 5% of the subcontract value and no practice rules were mentioned. The subcontract contained a clause stipulating that demands on the bond could not be restrained on the basis of unconscionability.1 (para.3).
A few years into the project,2 the relationship between the parties “deteriorated”. There were disputes regarding both performance of work as well as payment certifications. Subcontractor/Applicant later served a contract termination notice on Contractor/Beneficiary claiming it unilaterally reduced the scope of work and falsely accused Subcontractor/Applicant of performance delays. Contractor/Beneficiary’s first demand for payment was made 29 July 2022. Preceding the demand, Guarantor sent a letter to Contractor/Beneficiary in April 2022 informing that the bond would not be extended. While Contractor/Beneficiary claimed that it did not receive the April notice, it was undisputed that Contractor/Beneficiary received a second notice sent 19 July 2022.