This judgment text has undergone conversion so that it is mobile and web-friendly. This may have created formatting or alignment issues. Please refer to the PDF copy for a print-friendly version.
In the High Court of the Republic of Singapore
[1998] SGHC 414
Suit 2118/1997
Between
Four Seas Construction Co Pte Ltd |
… Plaintiff
And
The Tai Ping Insurance Company Limited Yeo Hiap Seng Limited |
… Defendant
grounds of decision
This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher’s duty in compliance with the law, for publication in LawNet and/or the Singapore Law Reports. |
Four Seas Construction Co Pte Ltd v The Tai Ping Insurance Company Limited and Another
[1998] SGHC 414
Suit 2118/1997
Tay Yong Kwang JC
30 December 1998
Tay Yong Kwang JC
30 December 1998
1
Judgment :
Judgment :
2
3
4 THE WRIT OF SUMMONS
5
6 THE EX PARTE APPLICATION
7 3 On the same day, the Plaintiffs took out an ex parte
8
"WHEREASth day of May 1996 between yourselves as Employer and
MESSRS. FOUR SEAS CONSTRUCTION CO PTE LTD 8-STOREY
FACTORY AND 3-STOREY OFFICE BUILDING ON LOT 2353 MK 13 AT SENOKO WAY, SINGAPORE AND WHEREAS We THE TAI PING INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITEDNOW THIS DEED WITNESSETH:-1. In consideration of you not insisting on the Contractor paying SINGAPORE
DOLLARS THREE MILLION TWO HUNDRED AND SIX THOUSAND AND NINETY THREE ONLY ($3,206,093.00)SINGAPORE
DOLLARS THREE MILLION TWO HUNDRED AND SIX THOUSAND AND NINETY THREE ONLY ($3,206,093.00)3.1 the reason or circumstances of any demand hereunder, or6.2 expiry of this Bond as hereinafter provided.one hundred and eighty (180) days after
the expiry of the Maintenance Period or one hundred and eighty (180) days after the date
of issue of the Maintenance Certificate under the Contract whichever is the laterUndrawn portion
MESSRS. FOUR SEAS CONSTRUCTION CO PTE LTD 8-STOREY
FACTORY AND 3-STOREY OFFICE BUILDING ON LOT 2353 MK 13 AT SENOKO WAY, SINGAPORE AND WHEREAS We THE TAI PING INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITEDNOW THIS DEED WITNESSETH:-1. In consideration of you not insisting on the Contractor paying SINGAPORE
DOLLARS THREE MILLION TWO HUNDRED AND SIX THOUSAND AND NINETY THREE ONLY ($3,206,093.00)SINGAPORE
DOLLARS THREE MILLION TWO HUNDRED AND SIX THOUSAND AND NINETY THREE ONLY ($3,206,093.00)3.1 the reason or circumstances of any demand hereunder, or6.2 expiry of this Bond as hereinafter provided.one hundred and eighty (180) days after
the expiry of the Maintenance Period or one hundred and eighty (180) days after the date
of issue of the Maintenance Certificate under the Contract whichever is the laterUndrawn portion
9
10
"REQUEST FOR ADVANCE PAYMENTYEO HIAP SENG FACTORY AT SENOKO WAY ("the Project")2 That if before 75% of the Project is completed:c. any resolution to wind you up is passed; ord. any execution is levied on you or your properties;
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Total loans/advances | $15,722,756.92 |
$ 4,500,000.00 | |
$11,222,756.92 | |
Less: Unpaid Certificates | $ 4,597,025.85 |
$ 6,625,731.07 |
18
97% of adjusted contract sum | $32,732,410.88 |
Less : Retention (5%) | $ 1,603,046.50 |
$31,129,364.38 | |
Less: Previous certificates | $29,880,990.45 |
$ 1,248,373.93 |
19
20
21
22
23
24 THE PLEADINGS
25
26
27
28 THE SUMMONS FOR DIRECTIONS
29
30 YHS’S APPLICATION TO SET ASIDE INJUNCTION
31
32
33 The application was granted by the Assistant Registrar.
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55 PLAINTIFFS’ AFFIDAVIT IN REPLY
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64 YHS’s AFFIDAVITS IN REPLY
65
66
67
68
69 ex parte
70
71
72 THE DECISION OF THE COURT
73 57 The decision of the Court of Appeal in Bocotra Construction Pte
Ltd & Others v Attorney-General (no. 2) [1995] 2 SLR 733
Ltd & Others v Attorney-General (no. 2) [1995] 2 SLR 733
74 Further at page 747C, the Court of Appeal noted:
75 prima facie
76
77
78 61 The affidavit supporting the ex parte
79 bona fides
80
81
82 TAY YONG KWANG
83 JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER
84 SUPREME COURT
85 30 December 1998
Tay Yong Kwang JC |
Joseph Liow (Derrick Ravi & Pnrs) for the plaintiffs
Brij Raj Rai with Edric Pan (Rajah & Tann) for the first defendants
Ho Chien Mien (Allen & Gledhill) for the second defendants
Brij Raj Rai with Edric Pan (Rajah & Tann) for the first defendants
Ho Chien Mien (Allen & Gledhill) for the second defendants
This judgment text has undergone conversion so that it is mobile and web-friendly. This may have created formatting or alignment issues. Please refer to the PDF copy for a print-friendly version.
Version No 1: 11 Sep 2026 (01:05 hrs)