Does the owner have to prove actual loss to claim LDs?
No. The point of an enforceable LD clause is that the agreed sum is recoverable for each day or week of culpable delay without proof of the actual loss. The owner does need to show that the contractor failed to complete by the completion date as properly extended, and must satisfy any procedural steps the contract requires, such as a delay certificate from the architect or employer's representative.
From the RRD Field Guide, checked against the sources cited in Liquidated Damages and Extension of Time in Singapore: An Owner's and Contractor's Guide. General information, not advice for your project.
The fuller picture
In Singapore, a liquidated damages clause is enforceable if it is a genuine pre-estimate of loss and not a penalty; the Court of Appeal in Denka Advantech (2020) kept the traditional Dunlop test and declined the UK Cavendish approach. LDs only run for delay the contractor is responsible for, so the contract needs a clear extension-of-time clause, notice rules and a certification step.
More questions on this topic
- Are liquidated damages enforceable in Singapore?
- What happens if the owner causes delay and there is no extension of time clause?
- If the contractor misses the EOT notice deadline, is time at large?
- How is concurrent delay treated in Singapore?
- Should a small fit-out contract have liquidated damages?
- Can LDs be deducted from a progress payment under SOPA?
- Are LDs capped?