If the contractor misses the EOT notice deadline, is time at large?
Not in Singapore, on current appellate authority. In Diamond Glass Enterprise v Zhong Kai Construction [2022] SGHC(A) 44 the Appellate Division held that a contractor's failure to comply with a notice condition precedent did not set time at large, and declined to follow the Australian Gaymark approach. The contractor loses the extension, and LDs remain recoverable for the period of delay.
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?
- Does the owner have to prove actual loss to claim LDs?
- What happens if the owner causes delay and there is no extension of time clause?
- 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?