 |
|
 |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| Jul 2015 to Mar 2016 |
| 1. |
Ashok Kumar Rai |
| 2. |
Mohamad Juraimi Bin Sik Ejin |
| 3. |
Edith Ho |
|
| 4. |
Nicholas Brown |
| 5. |
Jing Kai Yeo |
| 6. |
Andrew Oddie |
| 7. |
Bee Ling Yeo |
| 8. |
Geoffrey Tan |
| 9. |
Erin Miller Rankin |
| 10. |
Weiling Chen |
| 11. |
Shin Tan |
| 12. |
Gadriel Tan |
| 13. |
Dennis Chee |
| 14. |
Lee Baker |
| 15. |
See Kar Wong |
| 16. |
Kamini Thillainathan |
| 17. |
Hannah Angsana |
| 18. |
Simon Milnes |
| 19. |
Kk Lim |
| 20. |
Teng Kay Chin |
| 21. |
Sara Paradisi |
| 22. |
You Yu Benson Lim |
| 23. |
Sinyee Ong |
| 24. |
Christopher Boog |
| 25. |
Matthew Shaw |
| 26. |
Vivienne Li |
| 27. |
Yee Cheng Chan |
| 28. |
Valerie Koh |
| 29. |
Poh Man, Vincent Leong |
| 30. |
Woeilin Sun |
| 31. |
Ganesh Ratnam Bharath |
| 32. |
Weilin Chua |
| 33. |
Ling Yi Quek |
| 34. |
Dimson Batanan |
| 35. |
Sharon Lim |
| 36. |
Yun Jie Yong |
| 37. |
Faizal Shah |
| 38. |
Kwong Rong Clement Ee |
| 39. |
Mark Arden |
| 40. |
Derek How |
| 41. |
Reena Cristabel Rajamohan |
| 42. |
Choong Wan Chan |
| 43. |
Adrienne Kouwenhoven |
| 44. |
Jia Lin Ho |
| 45. |
Nam Onn Chan |
| 46. |
Kok Kooi Goh |
| 47. |
Patricia Ho |
| 48. |
Luke Walker |
| 49. |
Taryn Yap |
| 50. |
Kevin Attrill |
| 51. |
Alex Veopaseuth |
| 52. |
Vincent Ng |
| 53. |
Yong Neng Chan |
| 54. |
Mark Curties |
| 55. |
Leslie Harland |
| 56. |
Daniel Tay |
| 57. |
Goh Boon Yee |
| 58. |
Brendan-Keefe Au |
| 59. |
Nicholas Hall |
| 60. |
Chau Ee Lee |
| 61. |
Kok Siang Tai |
| 62. |
Han Kwong Lim |
| 63. |
Matthew Osborne |
| 64. |
Ostiane Goh-Livorness |
| 65. |
Daniel Waldek |
| 66. |
Trudie Moeller |
| 67. |
Rashed Ali
|
| 68. |
Vincent Ng
|
| 69. |
Elizabeth Goh
|
| 70. |
Andrew Merrilees
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
The Inaugural SCL “Focus On Asia” Construction Law Conference
(1 and 2 September 2015)
The 7th SCL Annual Dinner
(22 July 2015))
The Security Of Payment Act And Developments In Construction Law
((27 January 2016)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
| |
 Dear SCL(S) members,
A warm hello to all SCL(S) members as we enter into year 2016, especially to those who have recently joined our membership. It is very pleasing that this year’s membership has a good rate of both renewals and new applications. The society is in good shape, both financially and in terms of membership numbers.
A BRIEF UPDATE ON SCL (INTERNATIONAL)
SCL (International) (http://www.sclinternational.org/)
Since the formation of this international grouping in mid September 2014 (during the international conference held in in Malaysia), there has been regular discussions/dialogues. The grouping includes all of the chairpersons and international liaison/external relations chair persons of each of the partner societies and observers from interested/soon to be registered SCLs.
 |
| |
|
| |
Some Legal Perspectives On The Use Of Building Information Modelling (BIM) In Singapore
Internationally, Building Information Modelling (BIM) has been identified as one of the key technologies that will transform the construction industry. Unsurprisingly, Singapore has jumped onto the bandwagon, with the adoption rate for BIM rising from 20% in 2009 to 65% of all constructions in 2014. The key value of BIM lies in enabling building professionals of various disciplines (architects, structural engineers, structural professionals, M&E engineers and contractors) to explore the building project digitally before it is built. The 3-D model of a project and drawings can be shared among the professionals who can then analyse and resolve potential design clashes before construction begins. BIM facilitates better teamwork among professionals which in turn reduces unnecessary re-works when the project is being constructed.
http://www.scl.org.sg/images/M_images/images/images/Issue26/longBox4.png
Contributed by Paul Wong, Partner at Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Evaluative Mediation – My Experience
Introduction
As a UK trained and experienced mediator with Quantity Surveying experience and having done around 70 commercial mediations, I had always used facilitative methods to obtain agreements, having been trained that way.
In facilitative mediation, the mediator structures a process to assist the parties to reach a mutually agreeable resolution. The mediator asks questions; validates the parties' points of view; searches for interests underneath the positions taken by parties; and assists the parties in finding and analysing options for resolution.
However, for one of those 70 mediations, I “came off the fence” and became evaluative, because it was the right thing to do at that time. Here, I will set out the case before me and how it progressed until it was resolved finally.
Contributed by Mark McGeoch FRICS, FCIArb, FSIArb, Director of Navigant
Construction Case Law Updates
The Importance of Observing the Dispute Settlement Period
Case(s)
Newcon Builders Pte Ltd v Sino New Steel Pte Ltd [2015] SGHCR 13
Newcon Builders Pte Ltd v Sino New Steel Pte Ltd [2015] SGHC 226
Tienrui Design & Construction Pte Ltd v G&Y Trading and Manufacturing Pte Ltd [2015] SGHC 243
Can an adjudication application be lodged prior to the expiry of the dispute settlement period ("DSP") provided under section 12(5) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment act (the "Act")? This issue was considered in several decisions by the High Court.
In the case of Newcon Builders Pte Ltd v Sino New Steel Pte Ltd [2015] SGHCR 13, Assistant Registrar Paul Chan was asked to consider whether the lodgement of an Adjudication Application prior to the expiry of the dispute settlement period. AR Chan held that the primary objective of the Act was to create an expedited adjudication process to facilitate cash flow. If an adjudication application were to be rendered invalid by reason that it had been lodged prior to the expiry of the DSP, such invalidity would run counter to this primary objective. Further to the same, AR Chan also held that a failure to comply with section 12 of the Act was not an issue which fell to be considered by the High Court in an application to set aside an adjudication determination. For this reason, the Assistant Registrar upheld the validity of the adjudication application, and hence, the adjudication determination.
Contributed by Toh Chen Han, Pinsents Masons
Wen Si Chow, Clasis LLC
Industry
Building Construction Authority (BCA) Updates - December 2015
Productive Builders will have an advantage when tendering for Government Projects.
Builders with good productivity records in their past projects and with investment in technology adoption and workforce development will soon have an advantage when tendering for government construction projects in Singapore. The tender evaluation framework for government construction projects has been revised, increasing the productivity weightage to 10% of the overall score. This has been made effective from January 2016.
The Building and Construction Authority (BCA) has launched $2.6 million funding for research programmes on construction productivity and will provide additional funding for Virtual Design and Construction (VDC). Research projects will focus on solutions to drive Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DfMA) in the sector and improve integration across the construction value chain.
Contributed by David Shuttleworth, Foremost Consultants
Expert Witness – Fit For Purpose?
Nobody likes disputes but they are a fact of life in the construction business. Resolving them quickly and fairly is in everyone’s best interests. Whilst many contractors and their legal counsel have a pool of expert witnesses to draw on, it is nevertheless useful to consider some of the critical factors that need to be considered when appointing experts. Some eye-brow raising claims have been presented over the years by expert witnesses, and in some cases it is dubious whether the instructed party was as well-informed as they should have been.
The Case for Experts
When relationships start to fail and the language of dispute blues the air, expert advice is usually needed at a number of stages. Experts may be instructed on matters of quantum, delay or technical expertise.
Contributed by George Wall, Managing Director of Asgard Project Solutions
Cavendish Square Holding BV V El Makdessi: Re-Make, Re-Model Or Redux?
Introduction
For centuries, obligees have been proposing agreed damages for breach of contract set at levels that are designed to deter the obligor from under-performing. And yet for the last three hundred years or so, parties entering into contracts governed by one of the mainstream common law systems (outside North America) have recognised a judge-made prohibition on an agreed damages provision having a dominant deterrent purpose. Rather, it must genuinely pre-estimate the loss that will flow from the relevant breach of contract. In practice, the "penalty rule" has rarely been applied to strike-down an agreed damages clause. Most clauses considered in the reports have been held to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss even if they are imperfect.
English law has just under-gone change in this regard. Late last year, in the combined hearing of two appeals, Cavendish Square Holding BV v El Makdessi and ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom reviewed the old authorities and restated the penalty rule in broader terms. This article explains the ruling in the first case, Cavendish Square Holding BV v El Makdessi ("Cavendish v Makdessi"). It then identifies the critical questions that parties ought to consider when assessing whether agreed damages are enforceable under English law.
Contributed by Nicholas A. Brown, Partner of Pinsent Masons MPillay LLP
|
| |
|
| |
The Inaugural SCL “Focus On Asia” Construction Law Conference
1-2 Sept 2015
 The inaugural SCL “Focus on Asia” Construction Law Conference was held in Singapore on 1st & 2nd September 2015.
Building on the strength of the community of Societies of Construction Law, this “Focus on Asia” Conference sought to bring together thought leaders from across the region to address how the growth of the regional construction industry has impacted on corresponding legal developments, regulation and policy.
Contributed by Rajiv Shanker Dwivedi, Advocate on Record in the Supreme Court of India, Joint Secretary, Society of Construction Law, India & Member of Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (UK)
The 7th SCL Annual Dinner
22 Jul 2015
 The 7th SCL Annual Dinner held on 22 July 2015 at &Sons Bacaro was a well organised event and well received by those who were present. The attendees included professionals from all walks of life within the construction industry, including lawyers, consultants and contractors.
As the guests arrived, Aperol spritzes and wine were served, whilst members chatted and networked amongst themselves. Some familiar faces were present, as well as many new.
As the guests sat down in anticipation of the feast which was soon to be served, SCL chairman Darren Benger delivered a welcoming speech and introduced the guest speaker, Mr Peter Chua, who would later be giving an after dinner speech.
Contributed by Nicholas Todd, Senior Consultant at Touchstone Consultants Ltd UK
The Security Of Payment Act And Developments In Construction Law
27 Jan 2016
 The Society conducted its annual construction law update on 27 January 2016 at Capital Tower. The seminar was chaired by Mr Alex Wong, Vice Chairman of the Society. The Society had the honour of hosting two eminent guest speakers for the seminar, Mr Christopher Chuah of WongPartnership LLP and Dr Phillip Chan of the National University of Singapore.
The evening started with Mr Wong delivering a lively introduction of the seminar and the speakers. This was followed by the Mr Chuah and Dr Chan providing the audience with updates on cases relating to the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (“SOP Act”) and the development of construction law in Singapore.
Contributed by Candy Agnes Sutedja, Senior Associate at WongPartnership LLP
|
| |
|
|
|
