Singapore: The security of payment adjudication regime that the Singapore Mediation Centre (SMC) administers is governed by, among other things, the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (SOPA) and the SMCAdjudication Procedure Rules. In August, two separate decisions of the Singapore Court of Appeal confirmed, among other things. – – That the SMC had powers under the SOPA to enact adjudication procedure rules that restrict the lodgement of documents on a particular day to certain hours ( Citiwall Safety Glass Pte Ltd v Mansource Interior Pte Ltd [2015] 5 SLR 482 (SGCA) ). The Court of Appeal’s decision is significant as it clarified that the de minimis rule is excluded from applying, and that even a document lodged 2 minutes late will be considered to be lodged out of time – – That a respondent in an adjudication application is entitled to apply to the Singapore Courts to challenge the adjudication application prior to the issuance of the adjudication determination ( Lau Fook Hoong Adam v GTH Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd [2015] 5 SLR 516 (SGHC) ). The High Court held that the adjudication process will not be stayed by the court application. In this regard, under section 27(5) of the SOPA, the respondent is required to provide the requisite security to Court before he is able to apply to the Singapore Court to challenge the adjudication determination. If an adjudication determination is issued before the court application is heard, the respondent must still provide the requisite security to Court, as required under section 27(5) of the SOPA. The High Court clarified that, if the security is not provided, the court application will be dismissed Australia: In Camporeale Holdings Pty Ltd v Mortimer Construction Pty Ltd & Anor [2015] QSC 211 the Supreme Court of Queensland provided further guidance as to the interaction between the payment mechanism under a contract and the payment mechanism under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld). The Claimant sent an email to the Respondent (which itself did not state it was a payment claim under the Act) which attached four invoices which were all stated to be made under the Act. The Court rejected any argument that the Claimant had either not submitted a valid payment claim or had submitted more than one payment claim in respect of a single reference date. Henry J found that the email and all its attachments were ‘readily discernible’ as a single payment claim under the Act.
18
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker