Publication Type

Transcript

Version

submittedVersion

Publication Date

11-2018

Abstract

In Audi Construction Pte Ltd v Kian Hiap Construction Pte Ltd, the Singapore Court of Appeal considereda payment claim to have been validly served although it was served earlier thanthe contractually stipulated date. This was because the service of the paymentclaim was “effective” only from the contractually stipulated date, and theclaimant had had a “good reason” to serve the payment claim early. This notecritically examines the reasoning in Audi vis-à-vis the existing law, the principleof freedom of contract, and the intentions of the parties in that case. In theabsence of future judicial elaboration on the “effective service” and “goodreason” doctrines, there is a risk that, in future, respondents may draw onthese doctrines to delay or frustrate the attempts of claimants to recoverpayments rightly due to them. Moreover, given that the Court had found that thedoctrine of estoppel would have operated in favour of the Claimant anyway, thecreation of the “effective service” and “good reason” principles was notnecessary.

Discipline

Asian Studies | Dispute Resolution and Arbitration

Research Areas

Dispute Resolution; Private Law

Publication

Singapore Journal of Legal Studies

First Page

128

ISSN

0218-2173

Publisher

National University of Singapore

Download

Share

COinS