Ee Hup Construction Pte Ltd. v. China Jingye Engineering Corp. [2025]

Factual Summary:

To support its excavation obligations for a train-line project, Ee Hup Construction Pte Ltd. (Subcontractor/Applicant) applied for and obtained an SGD 501,163 on-demand performance bond issued by India International Insurance Pte Ltd. (Issuer) in favour of China Jingye Engineering Corp. (Contractor/Beneficiary). Contractor/Beneficiary was engaged by the Land Transport Authority of Singapore (Principal) for construction of the Bedok South Mass Rapid Transit station and related tunnels. Performance bond value constituted 10% of the subcontract “lump sum” due to Subcontractor/Applicant upon completion. The bond expired 31 May 2024 and contained an auto-extension clause whereby it would extend for successive 180-day periods absent 90-day notice prior to expiration that Issuer would not extend. Judgment silent as to practice rules and choice of law.   

Around March 2023, a dispute arose concerning alleged back-charges incurred by Contractor/Beneficiary regarding equipment, materials, manpower and “safety lapses”.  While Subcontractor/Applicant issued a Payment Claim for SGD 1,909,794.65 for works allegedly completed, Contractor/Applicant issued its Payment Response acknowledging payment of only SGD 63,938.87, citing SGD 327,656.17 in back-charges.

Multiple instances of arbitration ensued whereby Subcontractor/Applicant forwarded Payment Claims alleging sums due and Contractor/Beneficiary raised Payment Responses alleging back-charges and other expenses due to fault by Subcontractor/Applicant. First instance adjudicator determined Contractor/Beneficiary owed Subcontractor/Applicant SGD 642,307.63; that decision did not consider back-charges as Contractor/Beneficiary withdrew those allegations therein. A request by Subcontractor/Applicant to review that determination was dismissed.