1 The Defendant engaged the Claimant to perform waterproofing works at two adjacent houses on Pasir Ris Road (“Houses”). ¹ The Houses were similar in layout and design and were separated by a swimming pool. ²

2 The scope of waterproofing works (“Contractual Scope”) was set out in the Claimant’s quotations 21031645-JC and 21031646-JC (“Quotations”) with a total contract sum of $62,060. ³ The Defendant paid a total deposit of $24,824. ⁴

3 The Claimant alleges that it completed the Contractual Scope in March 2022 and sought payment of the balance of $37,236 under the Quotations. ⁵ As the Defendant did not pay, the Claimant commenced this action.

4 The Defendant disputes liability to pay the Claimant.

(a) He takes the position that the Claimant has not completed the Contractual Scope, which required him to engage another contractor to complete; ⁶ or that the Claimant performed the Contractual Scope negligently. ⁷ The Defendant points to various water leakages experienced in the Houses between May 2022 and December 2022. ⁸

(b) He has also raised a counterclaim totalling close to $240,000 against the Claimant for breach of the Quotations (“Contractual Breach Counterclaim”), ⁹ negligence in the way the Contractual Scope was performed (“Negligent Workmanship Counterclaim”), ¹⁰ negligent advice (“Negligent Advice Counterclaim”) ¹¹ and negligent misrepresentation (“Misrepresentation Counterclaim”). ¹² Under s 54F(4) of the State Courts Act 1970 (2020 Rev Ed), the counterclaim could be tried by the Magistrates’ Court despite exceeding the Magistrates’ Court limit of $60,000.

5 The trial of the Defendant’s counterclaim was bifurcated between liability and damages, ¹³ while the Claimant’s claim was not bifurcated. This judgment relates to the present stage of trial and deals with the following main issues:

(a) Whether the Claimant has performed the works required under the Contractual Scope. The finding on this issue affects both the Claimant’s claim and the Defendant’s Contractual Breach Counterclaim.

(b) Whether the Defendant has established his other counterclaims, namely: the Negligent Workmanship Counterclaim, the Negligent Advice Counterclaim, and the Misrepresentation Counterclaim.

6 The Defendant engaged the Claimant to perform waterproofing works at the Houses after they had been built by a separate contractor. ¹⁴ The fact that the Houses had already been constructed is critical, as the Claimant would have to work with the existing structure and design. ¹⁵

7 The Claimant’s Mr Jason Chi Zi Quan (“Mr Chi”) performed a site survey in early March 2021 (“Site Survey”). ¹⁶ He identified various areas of water leakage, which were included in the Quotations setting out the Contractual Scope. ¹⁷ The Defendant signed and accepted the Quotations. ¹⁸

8 The Contractual Scope related to six areas:

(a) The reinforced concrete ledges (“RC Ledges Works”).

(b) The rooftop balcony (“Rooftop Balcony Works”). ¹⁹

(c) The ground level common walkways along the perimeter (“L1 Walkway Works”).

(d) The swimming pool (“Pool Works”).

(e) The metal roof at the back (“Metal Roof Works”).

(f) The skylight glass panel areas (“Skylight Works”).

9 I agree with the Claimant that the work required under the Quotations is limited to the Contractual Scope. ²⁰ The Quotations set out detailed job specifications for each area and specifically state that the Claimant was “To conduct waterproofing repairs/works for the below mentioned locations …” and that “Any items not included in the quotations will be treated as variation”. ²¹

10 Consequently, there is no basis for the Defendant’s assertion that the following had to be performed under the Quotations: ²²

(a) Waterproofing work at four additional areas not specified in the Quotations (“Additional Areas”): (i) the toilets, where leakage allegedly emanated from; ²³ (ii) the external walls, which allegedly had cracks; ²⁴ (iii) the third level balcony, where leakage allegedly emanated from; ²⁵ and (iv) the sink area at the third level of one of the Houses. ²⁶

(b) Water ponding and water tightness tests for the swimming pool. ²⁷

11 In addition to the express terms, I agree with the Defendant that the Quotations contained an implied term that the Claimant would perform the Contractual Scope with reasonable skill and care. ²⁸ While the Defendant originally alluded to an implied term that the Claimant would carry out “all necessary waterproofing works” for the Houses, ²⁹ he did not pursue this in his Closing Submissions.

12 The Claimant contends that it satisfactorily performed the Contractual Scope.

13 While the Defendant accepts that the RC Ledges Works, Metal Roof Works and Skylight Works were satisfactorily performed, ³⁰ he takes the position that the Rooftop Balcony Works, L1 Walkway Works and Pool Works were not completed and has put the Claimant to strict proof. ³¹

14 The burden lies on the Claimant to prove its claim by showing that the following works as set out in the Quotations were performed:

(a) In respect of the Rooftop Balcony Works: ³²

(b) As to the L1 Walkway Works: ³³

(c) With regards to the Pool Works: ³⁴

15 I agree with the Defendant that the Claimant has failed to discharge its burden of proving that the Rooftop Balcony Works, L1 Walkway Works and the entirety of the Pool Works were completed.

16 The six categories of evidence relied on by the Claimant in its Closing Submissions merely show that part of the Pool Works was performed.

17 First, the Claimant relied on the testimony of Mr Chi in his Affidavits of Evidence-in-Chief (“AEICs”) dated 23 December 2024 (“Mr Chi’s 1st AEIC”) and 26 February 2025 (“Mr Chi’s 2nd AEIC”). However, contrary to the Claimant’s contention, Mr Chi’s AEICs only demonstrate that part of the Pool Works was performed, and do not adequately show that the Rooftop Balcony Works, L1 Walkway Works and the entirety of the Pool Works were completed. ³⁵

(a) The Claimant referred to [21] of Mr Chi’s 1st AEIC and [18] of Mr Chi’s 2nd AEIC to argue that the Rooftop Balcony Works were completed. ³⁶

(i) These paragraphs are unhelpful as they provide no information about the performance of the Rooftop Balcony Works listed at [14(a)] above.

(ii) Instead, these paragraphs merely address how any water observed at the rooftop balcony after the Rooftop Balcony Works were allegedly performed would have been blown in by strong winds ³⁷ and how the Claimant applied a nano-treatment waterproofing layer instead of the Davco K11 cementitious waterproofing membrane specified in the Quotations. ³⁸ Given the Claimant’s position that the work required under the Quotations is limited to the Contractual Scope, I am not satisfied that applying the nano-treatment waterproofing layer as a substitute fulfils the requirements of the Quotations, as there is no evidence that the Defendant agreed to such a variation. ³⁹

(b) The Claimant referred to [20] of Mr Chi’s 1st AEIC to argue that the L1 Walkway Works were completed. ⁴⁰ However, this paragraph merely addresses the application of a nano-treatment waterproofing layer (which is not specified in the Quotations – see [17(a)(ii)] above) and provides no information about how the L1 Walkway Works listed at [14(b)] above were performed.

(c) The Claimant referred to [27] of Mr Chi’s 1st AEIC and [13] of Mr Chi’s 2nd AEIC to argue that the Pool Works were completed. ⁴¹

(i) I agree with the Claimant that these paragraphs provide sufficient information and details to discharge its evidential burden of proving that it applied the Davco K11 cementitious waterproofing membrane. Mr Chi has described how this was applied before tiles were laid by a separate contractor in the swimming pool. He has also described how the Claimant subsequently performed a water ponding test for the swimming pool, even though this was not part of the Contractual Scope (see [10(b)] above). Further, the Defendant has provided no evidential basis for his argument that the application of the Davco K11 cementitious waterproofing membrane was done without reasonable skill and care. ⁴²

(ii) However, these paragraphs provide no information regarding the remaining scope of the Pool Works – the construction of a 2” fillet.

18 Second, the Claimant relied on a photo collage. ⁴³ However, the photographs are unhelpful because the Claimant does not explain what work they depict, or how they correspond to the Rooftop Balcony Works, L1 Walkway Works or Pool Works. ⁴⁴

19 Third, the Claimant pointed to the Defendant’s failure to raise any concerns in response to a WhatsApp message sent by Mr Chi stating that the works were completed ⁴⁵ and the Defendant’s failure to respond to the letter of demand issued by the Claimant’s solicitors. ⁴⁶ However, the evidence shows that the Defendant was communicating with Mr Chi and raising concerns about the work. ⁴⁷

20 Fourth, the Claimant relied on an alleged concession made by the Defendant’s subsequent contractor Mr Edison Teo (“Mr Teo”) during cross-examination that the works were completed. ⁴⁸

(a) The Claimant pointed to the following exchange during cross-examination: ⁴⁹

(b) However, this selective reference does not accurately reflect Mr Teo’s evidence, as he continued to state as follows: ⁵⁰

(c) Mr Teo therefore did not concede that the Claimant had completed the Rooftop Balcony Works, L1 Walkway Works or Pool Works. While Mr Teo indicated “It was done”, the Claimant’s solicitors did not establish what was done or how it corresponds with the Contractual Scope.

21 Fifth, the Claimant pointed to Mr Teo’s evidence that the level 3 balcony was not part of the Contractual Scope. ⁵¹ However, this was irrelevant to whether the Rooftop Balcony Works were performed as Mr Teo was referring to the balcony on the third floor rather than the rooftop balcony (see [8(b)] above).

22 Sixth, the Claimant raised Mr Teo’s failure to perform any works at the ground level common walkways ⁵² and the swimming pool ⁵³ as evidence that L1 Walkway Works and Pool Works were completed. ⁵⁴ However, the absence of work performed by the Defendant’s subsequent contractor does not establish that the Claimant had completed the L1 Walkway Works and Pool Works.

23 Aside from part of the Pool Works that was performed (see [17(c)(i)] above), the Claimant has failed to provide evidence showing that the Rooftop Balcony Works, L1 Walkway Works and the remaining scope of the Pool Works were completed. ⁵⁵ There is nothing that shows: (a) what was done; (b) when it was done; or (c) the circumstances relating to the work done. ⁵⁶

24 Accordingly, the Claimant is only entitled to payment for the RC Ledges Works, Metal Roof Works, Skylight Works and part of the Pool Works, which were completed (“Completed Works”). However, as the Quotations were lump sum contracts ⁵⁷ and the Claimant produced no evidence on quantum for individual areas, ⁵⁸ there is no basis to quantify the value of the Completed Works and I must dismiss its claim for the unpaid balance of $37,236. That said, as the Defendant has not sought a refund of the $24,824 deposit (which is consistent with his position that part of the Contractual Scope was satisfactorily performed (see [13] above)), I find that the Claimant is entitled to retain the $24,824 deposit as payment for the Completed Works.

25 In reaching this decision, I am mindful that the Defendant may have initially suggested that payment would be forthcoming after the Claimant informed him that the works were completed ⁵⁹ and that the Defendant may have raised other excuses to avoid payment. ⁶⁰ However, the Defendant’s initial willingness to pay does not establish that the Contractual Scope was completed, particularly since he was subsequently communicating with Mr Chi and raising concerns about the work. ⁶¹

26 In light of the Claimant’s failure to prove that it completed the Rooftop Balcony Works, L1 Walkway Works and the entirety of the Pool Works, I agree with the Defendant that the Claimant breached the Quotations.

27 However, the Defendant has not proven any loss from the breach.

28 First, the Defendant has not paid the balance of $37,236 under the Quotations and has not claimed a refund of the $24,824 deposit (see [24] above).

29 Second, the Defendant has not proven causation.

(a) As to the Rooftop Balcony Works:

(i) The Defendant’s alleged loss relates to cracks on tiles and walls, and water seepage flowing to the third and second floors. ⁶²

(ii) However, the Defendant has not demonstrated how these problems can be traced to the Claimant’s failure to perform the Rooftop Balcony Works listed at [14(a)] above. ⁶³

(b) With regards to the L1 Walkway Works:

(i) The Defendant’s alleged loss relates to water flowing into the living room from the sliding doors, and to moss and water stains. ⁶⁴

(ii) However, the Claimant has explained that the water ingress results from the difference in elevation that causes water to flow from the outdoor area towards the sliding doors of the living room. ⁶⁵

(iii) I agree with the Claimant that these issues are structural and not caused by the Claimant’s failure to perform the L1 Walkway Works. ⁶⁶

(c) In relation to the Pool Works:

(i) The Defendant’s alleged loss relates to water seepage and calcium build-up at the car porch, swimming pool wall and living room tiles. ⁶⁷

(ii) However, the Defendant has not demonstrated how these problems can be traced to the Claimant’s failure to construct a 2” fillet. ⁶⁸

30 I therefore dismiss the Defendant’s Contractual Breach Counterclaim.

31 The Defendant argues that the Rooftop Balcony Works, L1 Walkway Works and Pool Works performed by the Claimant (if any) were done without reasonable care. ⁶⁹ This is an alternative position that only applies if the Defendant did not succeed in his primary position that the Claimant did not complete the works.

32 I dismiss the Negligent Workmanship Counterclaim, which has no factual basis in light of my findings that (a) the Claimant has not proven that it completed the Rooftop Balcony Works, L1 Walkway Works and the entirety of the Pool Works (see [15]-[23] above); and (b) the Defendant has provided no evidential basis for his argument that the part of the Pool Works that was performed was done without reasonable skill and care (see [17(c)(i)] above).

33 To establish a claim for negligent advice, the Defendant must establish the following elements: (a) the Claimant owed a duty of care; (b) the Claimant breached that duty; (c) the Claimant’s breach caused the Defendant damage; (d) the Defendant’s losses are not too remote; and (e) the losses can be adequately proved and quantified (Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100 at [21]). ⁷⁰

34 A duty of care arose because the Claimant held itself out as a waterproofing expert and was aware that the Defendant was relying on it to determine the scope of waterproofing services required. ⁷¹

35 The Defendant has, however, failed to show that the Claimant breached that duty.

(a) The Defendant raises the Additional Areas that he says ought to have been covered in the Quotations, and also points to the Claimant’s failure to advise him to perform water ponding and water tightness tests for the swimming pool (see [10] above).

(b) However, there is no evidence of problems arising from the Additional Areas during the Site Survey before the Quotations were issued. ⁷²

(i) I accept Mr Chi’s evidence that he inspected the Houses and set out the areas of water leakage that he could identify (see [7] above), and that there were no other areas (including the Additional Areas) that exhibited problems requiring waterproofing works. ⁷³

(ii) The evidence from the Defendant’s subsequent contractor Mr Teo that there were problems at the Additional Areas has limited value, ⁷⁴ as his observations relate to a different time and do not speak to the condition of the Additional Areas during the Site Survey. ⁷⁵

(iii) Moreover, while the Defendant obtained quotations from at least three other contractors before engaging the Claimant, ⁷⁶ none identified problems at the Additional Areas.

(c) In this regard, it is not reasonable for the Defendant to expect the Claimant to provide advice on issues that may not have materialised at the time of the Site Survey. ⁷⁷

(d) In respect of the water ponding and water tightness tests for the swimming pool, the Claimant has given evidence that it performed the tests (see [17(c)(i)] above). ⁷⁸

36 I therefore dismiss the Negligent Advice Counterclaim.

37 In his Closing Submissions, the Defendant characterises the Claimant’s representation as follows (“Alleged Representation”): ⁷⁹

38 The only evidence the Defendant relies on in his Closing Submissions to demonstrate that the representation was made is Mr Chi’s evidence at trial where he said “based on the balcony, we are doing the whole area, it’s more a comprehensive waterproofing [of] the entire place”. ⁸⁰

39 This statement is insufficient to prove that the Alleged Representation was made, as Mr Chi’s reference to “comprehensive waterproofing” relates to the balcony and not to the Houses as a whole.

40 In any event, the Defendant has failed to show how the Alleged Representation is false because:

(a) There is sufficient evidence that the Claimant is a waterproofing specialist. ⁸¹

(b) The Claimant conducted a comprehensive survey based on the condition of the Houses at the time of the Site Survey (see [7] and [35(b)] above).

(c) There is no evidence that the Quotations fail to encompass the necessary waterproofing works to provide a complete solution based on the condition of the Houses at the time of the Site Survey (see [35(b)] above).

41 I therefore dismiss the Misrepresentation Counterclaim.

42 I dismiss both the Claimant’s claim and the Defendant’s counterclaim.

43 The parties are to file and exchange written submissions on the issue of costs (limited to 5 pages) within 14 days from the date of this judgment.