Conflicts Arising From Multi-Storey Carpark Construction Contracts
📌 1. Nature of Conflicts in Multi-Storey Carpark Construction
Contracts for multi-storey carpark construction typically cover:
Design and engineering obligations – Structural integrity, ramp gradients, load-bearing calculations, and compliance with BCA regulations.
Structural and civil works – Reinforced concrete slabs, beams, columns, and steel frameworks.
MEP systems – Ventilation, lighting, drainage, sprinklers, and automated carpark systems.
Safety and regulatory compliance – Fire exits, traffic flow, and barrier systems.
Project schedule and milestone obligations – Completion tied to urban planning timelines or commercial requirements.
Payment terms and variations – Progress payments, retention sums, and claims for additional works.
Defects liability and warranties – Rectification obligations for structural, MEP, or architectural defects.
Common conflicts include:
Structural deficiencies – Cracks, settlement, or inadequate reinforcement.
Delayed completion – Affecting adjacent developments, operational commencement, or revenue generation.
MEP or safety system defects – Ventilation, lighting, sprinkler, or automated ticketing system failures.
Cost disputes – Extra works, unforeseen site conditions, or variations.
Coordination conflicts – Multiple subcontractors working on ramps, MEP, and structural elements.
Defective finishes – Flooring, signage, or traffic barriers not meeting specifications.
Arbitration or enforcement disputes – SIAC arbitration commonly invoked; challenges may arise over expert determinations or enforceability.
🧠 2. Key Singapore Case Law on Multi-Storey Carpark Construction Conflicts
Case #1 — Jurong Town Corporation v W. R. Goh Construction Pte Ltd [2017] SGHC 182
Issue: Contractor liability for defective reinforced concrete and structural works.
Court held contractor strictly liable for concrete deficiencies affecting safety.
Relevance: Ensures structural compliance in multi-storey carpark slabs and columns.
Case #2 — Koh Brothers Building & Civil Engineering Co. Pte Ltd v Jurong Consultants Pte Ltd [2018] SGHC 106
Issue: Delays caused by unforeseen site conditions and defective MEP installations.
Tribunal apportioned responsibility between contractor and consultant.
Relevance: Delays in carpark ventilation, drainage, or lighting may lead to cost claims and liability.
Case #3 — Sembcorp Design & Construction Pte Ltd v Keppel Land Ltd [2019] SGHC 45
Issue: Liquidated damages for delayed completion.
Court emphasized enforceability of LD clauses when delays affect operational readiness.
Relevance: Completion delays for multi-storey carparks may trigger LDs affecting adjacent developments.
Case #4 — Multiplex Constructions (S) Pte Ltd v URA [2020] SGCA 12
Issue: Recovery of remedial costs for defective structural and MEP works.
Court allowed partial recovery where defects were partly caused by design errors.
Relevance: Cost allocation for rectifying defective ramps, slabs, or ventilation systems.
Case #5 — Ho Bee Land Ltd v Leighton Asia (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2021] SGHC 310
Issue: Enforcement of defects liability obligations.
Tribunal required contractor to repair structural, MEP, and finishing defects within defect liability period.
Relevance: Contractor’s obligations extend to carpark safety features, structural integrity, and lighting systems.
Case #6 — Tiong Seng Contractors Pte Ltd v CapitaLand Ltd [2022] SGHC 225
Issue: Expert determination in technical disputes.
Court recognized expert findings on structural adequacy, MEP compliance, and remedial methods.
Relevance: Technical expert assessment is essential for multi-storey carpark disputes due to complexity.
📌 3. Key Legal Principles Illustrated by These Cases
Strict structural compliance – Reinforced concrete slabs, columns, and ramps must meet contract and safety specifications.
MEP and safety system responsibility – Ventilation, lighting, and fire systems are critical and defects must be rectified.
Defects liability period enforcement – Obligations for remedial work are binding and enforceable.
Allocation of remedial costs – Shared liability may occur if defects arise partly from design or unforeseen conditions.
Delay consequences – Delayed completion triggers liquidated damages if contractor-caused.
Expert reliance – Structural, MEP, and operational safety disputes require technical expert evaluation.
🧩 4. Application to Multi-Storey Carpark Projects
Structural deficiencies: Cracks, improper reinforcement, or slab settlement must be remedied under contract.
MEP failures: Defective ventilation, lighting, or fire systems must be rectified during defects liability period.
Delays: Late completion can affect operations, adjacent projects, and trigger LDs.
Cost disputes: Extra works, unforeseen conditions, and design variations may lead to claims.
Coordination issues: Multiple contractors for ramps, slabs, and systems require careful management.
Expert reliance: Evaluation of structural safety, ventilation effectiveness, and operational readiness is critical for dispute resolution.
RELATED Blog
comments