Liquidated Damages and Extension of Time in Singapore: An Owner's and Contractor's Guide

Two clauses decide who pays when a construction job finishes late. The liquidated damages (LD) clause fixes, in advance, how much the contractor pays the owner for each day or week of delay. The extension of time (EOT) clause decides which delays count against the contractor at all. The two work as a pair: LDs only run from the completion date as properly extended, and a defective EOT regime can leave an owner with no LDs at all.

Singapore law in this area is settled on some points and still developing on others. The Court of Appeal confirmed in 2020 that Singapore keeps the traditional “genuine pre-estimate” test for penalties. Appellate courts have since clarified how the prevention principle, notice conditions and termination interact with LDs. Concurrent delay remains less settled.

This guide explains the rules for owners of A&A, fit-out and reinstatement works, and for the contractors who build them. It covers the penalty rule, the prevention principle, EOT notices, concurrent delay, how the main Singapore standard forms handle LDs and EOT, practical drafting for small jobs, and an Illustrative LD calculation. It is general information, not legal advice; for a live dispute, consult a Singapore construction lawyer.

What liquidated damages are, and why owners use them

A liquidated damages clause states a fixed sum, usually per day or per week, payable by the contractor if the works are not completed by the completion date. “Liquidated” means the amount is agreed in advance, as opposed to “unliquidated” or general damages, which a court or tribunal assesses after the event from evidence of actual loss.

LDs benefit both sides:

Party	Benefit of an LD clause	Risk
Owner	Recovers a known sum per day of culpable delay without proving actual loss	If the rate is too low or capped, the owner bears the excess loss
Contractor	Knows its maximum delay exposure and can price it	If the rate is high relative to the contract sum, a modest overrun can wipe out the margin
Both	Fewer disputes about quantum; faster resolution	Disputes shift to whether the delay was culpable (EOT) and whether the clause is a penalty

The economics of delay cost, and why the LD rate should be grounded in the owner’s real weekly loss, are covered in our guide on the cheapest quote vs delay risk, and you can test how an LD rate and cap interact with delay probability in the delay-risk simulator. The weekly cost of a late office handback is covered in holding-over cost and can be estimated with the overstay cost calculator. Where fit-out time typically goes, and therefore which delay events your EOT clause must anticipate, is covered in realistic fit-out programmes.

The penalty rule in Singapore

The Dunlop test, retained

An LD clause is unenforceable if it is a penalty. The classic test comes from the 1915 House of Lords decision in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v New Garage and Motor Co: a sum is a penalty if it is extravagant and unconscionable compared with the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved to follow from the breach; it is enforceable if it is a genuine pre-estimate of the likely loss, judged at the time of contracting.

In 2015 the UK Supreme Court in Cavendish Square Holding BV v Makdessi reformulated the test around whether the clause protects a “legitimate interest” of the innocent party and is out of all proportion to that interest. Singapore did not follow.

Court of Appeal, Denka Advantech v Seraya Energy [2020] SGCA 119

The Court of Appeal retained the Dunlop test and declined to adopt the Cavendish legitimate-interest approach, which it regarded as too general and uncertain. It also held that the penalty rule applies only where there has first been a breach of contract, confining it to secondary obligations such as the duty to pay damages. On the facts it upheld a liquidated damages clause that the High Court had struck down.¹²

Three practical consequences follow for construction contracts:

The test looks at the time of contracting. It does not matter that the owner’s actual loss turned out lower. What matters is whether the rate was a genuine pre-estimate when agreed. Keep the build-up.
The comparison is with the greatest conceivable loss. The Court quoted Dunlop’s formulation: a penalty is “extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss” that could conceivably follow.¹ A rate based on a sensible estimate of rent, holding-over and other delay costs will rarely fail that test.
Only sums payable on breach are caught. Payments triggered by events that are not breaches (for example, an option fee) fall outside the rule.

Issue	Singapore (Denka, 2020)	UK (Cavendish, 2015)
Core test	Genuine pre-estimate vs extravagant and unconscionable (Dunlop)	Legitimate interest; out of all proportion
Scope	Only sums payable upon breach	Only secondary obligations on breach
Focus	Compensation for likely loss, assessed at contracting	Broader commercial justification
Practical effect for LDs	Keep a written build-up of the rate	Commercial rationale can justify higher sums

The “genuine pre-estimate” in practice

A genuine pre-estimate does not have to be precise; it has to be honest and reasonable at the time. For a commercial fit-out or A&A job the build-up usually includes:

rent and service charges on premises the owner cannot yet use;
holding-over charges or double rent on the premises being vacated;
lost trading margin, for retail, F&B, clinics and similar;
interest or financing cost on the project;
extended fees for the project manager, designer or engineer;
temporary storage, temporary accommodation and duplicated services.

Write the build-up down and keep it with the contract file. If the clause is ever challenged, a contemporaneous calculation is the best evidence that the rate was a pre-estimate.

Extension of time: why it protects the owner too

The prevention principle

The prevention principle says a party cannot insist on performance of an obligation that it has itself prevented the other party from performing. In construction, an owner who delays the works (by late instructions, late access, variations, or failing to provide owner-supplied items) cannot hold the contractor to the original completion date for that delay.

An EOT clause is the contractual answer. It allows the certifier to move the completion date for owner-caused and other listed events, so that LDs continue to run from the new date. Without an applicable EOT mechanism, owner-caused delay can leave no valid completion date, and time becomes “at large”.

Time at large

When time is at large, the contractor’s obligation is to complete within a reasonable time, and the owner can claim only general damages for proven loss caused by any delay beyond that reasonable time. The LD clause has nothing to bite on.

Court of Appeal, Jurong Primewide v Crescendas Bionics [2019] SGCA 63

The contract (a letter of intent) had no extension of time clause, and the employer had committed acts of prevention. The completion time was treated as at large, so the contractor was liable only to complete within a reasonable time, and liability for the overrun was assessed as general damages. The Court of Appeal corrected the delay calculation to 161 days.⁶

The related litigation continued; in 2023 the Appellate Division assessed the parties’ competing delays and found both had been independent, effective causes of loss.⁷

The lesson for owners of small jobs is simple: a contract with an LD clause but no EOT clause is fragile. The first variation the owner instructs could put time at large.

EOT grounds

A well-drafted EOT clause lists the events that entitle the contractor to more time. These typically include variations (see variation orders and provisional sums), late information or instructions, late possession of site, suspension instructed by the owner, acts of other contractors engaged by the owner, force majeure, and (in Singapore forms) authority requirements. A catch-all for “any act of prevention or breach of contract by the Employer” is important: it ensures that unexpected owner-caused delay still has a contractual route to an extension, which preserves the LD regime. PSSCOC includes exactly such a ground, at clause 14.2(n).³

Notices and conditions precedent

Why notice matters

Most standard forms require the contractor to notify the certifier of a delay event within a fixed period. A notice requirement can be drafted as:

a condition precedent: no notice in time, no extension, regardless of merit; or
an ordinary obligation: late notice may affect the assessment or give rise to a counterclaim, but does not forfeit the right.

Only clear words create a condition precedent.

What the main Singapore forms say

PSSCOC 2020. The contractor must notify the Superintending Officer immediately and in any case within 60 days of the occurrence of the event, and within the same 60 days give reasons, the length of delay and the extension required, and the effect on the accepted programme. The clause states that both the notice and the further information within 60 days “shall be conditions precedent to any entitlement to an extension of time”. The Superintending Officer must say within 60 days whether the event does or might qualify. The contractor cannot later claim a longer extension, or new grounds, than were put to the Superintending Officer.³

SIA conditions (9th Edition, 2010). As reproduced by the Appellate Division in Ser Kim Koi v GTMS Construction [2022] SGHC(A) 34, clause 23(2) makes it a condition precedent to an extension that the contractor notify the architect in writing within 28 days of the relevant event, direction or instruction; the architect must state within one month of a request whether the event in principle entitles the contractor to an extension. Clause 23(3) sets only the latest time for the architect to decide; the architect need not wait until the delaying event has ended.⁴⁵ In the earlier Aoki Corp v Lippoland [1995] SGHC 50, decided on an earlier version of the SIA form, the High Court treated the 28-day notice as an express condition precedent, but held that the architect’s failure to give the one-month in-principle response did not, by itself, invalidate the later extension decision.⁹

The SIA’s current suite is the SIA Building Contract 2016 (Without Quantities, With Quantities, Design & Build, and Sub-Contract).¹⁰ Much of the reported case law concerns the 9th Edition, so check the edition and clause numbering in your own contract.

What happens if the contractor misses the notice

Appellate Division, Diamond Glass Enterprise v Zhong Kai Construction [2022] SGHC(A) 44

The subcontract required a written EOT application within 30 days. The subcontractor made none, so it was not entitled to an extension. The court rejected the Australian Gaymark approach, under which non-compliance with an EOT condition precedent could set time at large where the employer caused the delay, and held: “Time is not set at large by virtue of this non-compliance.” The employer kept its LD claim. The court also held that LDs generally stop accruing on termination unless the contract says otherwise.⁸

For contractors, this makes notice provisions decisive: a valid delay event without timely notice may cost the extension and leave LDs running. For owners, it means a well-drafted condition precedent is enforceable, but the owner still needs an EOT clause that covers its own acts, otherwise Jurong Primewide-type reasoning can apply.

Concurrent delay

Concurrent delay describes two or more delaying events that affect completion over the same period, where one is the owner’s risk and another is the contractor’s. Example: the owner’s furniture supplier is late (owner risk), while the contractor’s ceiling subcontractor is short of workers (contractor risk), and both independently hold up completion for the same ten days.

The Singapore position is not fully settled. A CMS review describes it as unsettled, notes that English authority is persuasive, and points to PPG Industries v Compact Metal Industries [2013] SGCA 23, where the Court of Appeal reduced a subcontractor’s delay liability from 273 days to 186 days because other events had contributed.¹¹ PSSCOC 2020 directs the Superintending Officer, when assessing an extension, to take into account any concurrent delays due to the contractor’s own acts or default, but does not say how that should be done.³

In CAJ v CAI [2021] SGCA 102, the Court of Appeal upheld the setting aside of an arbitral award’s 25-day extension, granted on a ground that had not been properly pleaded. Commenting on the tribunal’s apportionment based on the parties’ culpability, the court observed that the EOT clause in that contract had nothing to do with culpability as such; EOT assessment was described as fact-sensitive and evidence-driven.¹²

Approach	What it means	Effect on LDs
Full extension, no money	Contractor gets time for the concurrent period but no prolongation costs	LDs do not run for the concurrent period
Apportionment	Time (and sometimes cost) is split by relative causative effect	LDs run for the contractor’s share
Dominant / effective cause	Liability follows the cause that was effective or dominant	Depends on which cause is found dominant
Contract-defined	The contract states the rule	Whatever the contract says

Practical advice: define concurrent delay and its consequence in the contract (for example, “where delay is caused concurrently by a Relevant Event and a matter for which the Contractor is responsible, the Contractor shall be entitled to an extension of time but not to loss and expense for the period of concurrency”). Clear drafting is likely to be enforced, and saves an argument.

LDs in the main Singapore standard forms

Feature	PSSCOC Construction Works 2020	SIA conditions (9th Ed 2010, as in case law)	REDAS Design & Build (4th Ed)
Who uses it	Public sector	Private building contracts with an architect	Private design-and-build
LD trigger	Failure to substantially complete by the Time for Completion as extended (cl 16.1)	Architect’s delay certificate is the basis for deducting LDs	Employer’s Representative’s Delay Certificate is a condition for recovery
EOT notice	Within 60 days; condition precedent (cl 14.3(1))	Within 28 days; condition precedent (cl 23(2))	Check the form
Partial completion	LDs reduced pro rata to value certified complete (cl 16.2)	Check the form	Check the form
If LDs fail in law	Employer may claim common-law damages, not limited by the LD amount (cl 16.3)	Not covered here	Not covered here
Delay events during culpable delay	LD right unaffected; EOT still granted for listed employer-side events (cl 16.4)	Not covered here	Not covered here

Sources: PSSCOC 2020;³ Ser Kim Koi and Aoki;⁴⁹ SIA’s announcement of the REDAS 4th Edition, which highlights the Delay Certificate as a condition for recovering LDs.¹³ Where the table says “check the form”, we have not verified the clause and you should read the edition in your contract.

PSSCOC’s clause 16.3 is worth noting as a drafting model: if LDs turn out to be unrecoverable for any reason, the employer falls back on common-law damages, and the contractor’s liability for those damages is expressly not limited to the LD amount.³

Composite scenario: LDs lost to a single variation

A tenant engaged a contractor on a one-page letter of award for a S$300,000 office fit-out with LDs of S$1,500 per day. The letter had no extension of time clause. In week five the tenant added a glass meeting room. The contractor finished 30 days late, partly because of the meeting room and partly because of its own labour shortage. When the tenant deducted S$45,000 in LDs, the contractor argued that the variation had prevented completion by the original date, that there was no mechanism to extend it, and that time was therefore at large. The tenant was left to prove its actual loss as general damages, with the contractor arguing the “reasonable time” for the enlarged scope had not been exceeded by much. This is a composite scenario; the figures are Illustrative.

SOPA: deducting LDs from progress payments

Most construction contracts in Singapore are subject to the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004 (SOPA). Three provisions matter when an owner wants to deduct LDs:

The payment response must state the response amount and, where it is less than the claimed amount, the reasons for the difference and for any amount withheld (s 11(3)).¹⁴
In adjudication, the respondent generally cannot raise an objection that was not included in the payment response (s 15(3)), subject to narrow exceptions.¹⁴
The adjudicator must disregard any part of a payment claim or payment response related to damage, loss or expense that is not supported by a document showing agreement on quantum, or by a certificate or other document required to be issued under the contract (s 17(3)).¹⁴

On their wording, these provisions favour owners whose LD deductions are made in a timely payment response and supported by whatever certificate the contract requires (such as an architect’s or employer’s representative’s delay certificate). Where a contract requires a certificate and none has been issued, a deduction is exposed in adjudication. SOPA also confirms that if a contractor lawfully suspends work for non-payment of an adjudicated amount, the owner may still recover LDs from that contractor under the contract (s 26(2)(b)).¹⁴ See SOPA for owners and contractors.

Drafting LDs and EOT for small A&A and fit-out jobs

Small jobs rarely use full standard forms, which is exactly where LD and EOT problems arise. A two-page set of special conditions can avoid most of them.

LD and EOT drafting checklist for owners of small jobs

State a clear completion date, or a contract period from a defined start date (site possession), not “about 8 weeks”
Set an LD rate per calendar day, and keep a written build-up showing it is a pre-estimate of your loss
Decide whether to cap total LDs, and at what level; understand that delay cost above the cap is yours
State whether general damages remain available if LDs are held unenforceable (PSSCOC cl 16.3 is a model)
List EOT grounds, including owner variations, late owner information, owner-supplied items, late access, suspension by the owner, and “any act of prevention or breach by the Owner”
Allocate risk for building management, landlord or MCST approvals and working-hour restrictions expressly
Set a realistic notice period for a short job (for example 7–14 days) and say whether it is a condition precedent
Require the owner (or its representative) to respond to an EOT application within a set period
Provide for a written delay certificate before LDs are deducted
Define concurrent delay and its consequence
Provide for LD reduction if part of the works is handed over early
Require a programme before start, and progress reporting against it

Contractors: protecting the extension

For contractors, the same clauses are a shield. Keep a delay-event register, send notices within the contractual period even when the effect is uncertain, and update the estimate later. After Diamond Glass, a missed condition-precedent notice can mean losing an otherwise valid extension.⁸

How an EOT claim should run on a small job

Contractor identifies a delaying event and records the date it occurred.
Contractor gives written notice within the contractual period, citing the clause and describing the event.
Contractor provides particulars: the likely delay to completion (not just to one activity), the extension sought, and the effect on the programme.
Owner’s representative acknowledges and, if needed, asks for more information within a set time.
Owner’s representative decides and notifies a new completion date in writing, taking account of any concurrent contractor delay.
If the works finish after the (extended) completion date, the representative issues a delay certificate stating the period of culpable delay.
Owner deducts LDs in a timely payment response, stating the amount and reasons, or invoices them.

Worked example: LD calculation (Illustrative)

All numbers below are Illustrative.

The pre-estimate

An owner signs a S$240,000 office fit-out with a 10-week contract period and a completion date of 26 February 2027. Its pre-contract build-up of daily delay cost:

Cost item (Illustrative)	Daily amount
Rent and service charge on new premises (S$13,500/month ÷ 30)	S$450
Holding-over on old premises (estimated)	S$500
Extended project-management fee	S$100
Storage and temporary IT services	S$50
Total estimated loss per day	S$1,100

The parties agree LDs of S$1,000 per calendar day, slightly below the build-up, capped at 10% of the contract sum (S$24,000, equivalent to 24 days). The rate is a reasonable pre-estimate and is unlikely to be extravagant compared with the greatest conceivable loss.

The delay events

Event (Illustrative)	Whose risk	Notice in time?	Extension
Owner adds a meeting room (variation), delaying completion by 5 days	Owner	Yes	5 days
Building management bans noisy works for 3 days for a tenant event; contract allocates building-management restrictions to the owner	Owner	Yes	3 days
Contractor’s ceiling subcontractor under-manned for 2 weeks	Contractor	n/a	0 days
Owner’s IT cabling vendor late by 4 days	Owner	No (notice 40 days after event; contract condition precedent at 14 days)	0 days

Actual completion: 27 days after the original completion date.

The calculation

Extended completion date: original + 5 + 3 = 8 days later.
Culpable delay: 27 − 8 = 19 days.
LDs: 19 × S$1,000 = S$19,000, below the S$24,000 cap.

On the IT cabling event, the contract made notice a condition precedent and covered owner-supplied items within the EOT grounds, so on the reasoning in Diamond Glass, the contractor’s failure to notify does not set time at large; it simply loses those 4 days.⁸ If the contract had no EOT ground covering late owner-supplied items, the contractor could argue prevention and time at large under the Jurong Primewide line of reasoning,⁶ and the owner’s S$19,000 would become an argument about general damages.

If the contract had been silent on EOT (Illustrative)

Scenario	Owner’s position
EOT clause covering all owner-risk events, notices enforced	LDs of S$19,000 deductible with a delay certificate
No EOT clause; owner instructed a variation	Time arguably at large; owner must prove actual loss beyond a reasonable time
EOT clause but no delay certificate issued where the contract requires one	Deduction exposed in SOPA adjudication under s 17(3) and under the contract

How RRD approaches this

On RRD’s jobs, the quotation and programme are agreed before work starts, and cost-risk items that could affect time (such as concealed conditions and building-management restrictions) are listed up front. Variations are confirmed in writing with their effect on time stated, so the completion date is never in doubt. Owners are encouraged to set an LD rate they can justify from their own lease and handback costs.

Summary

Singapore applies the Dunlop genuine pre-estimate test; Denka Advantech (2020) declined Cavendish. Keep a written build-up of your LD rate.
LDs run only from the completion date as properly extended. An EOT clause protects the owner’s LD rights as much as the contractor’s time.
Owner-caused delay without an applicable EOT mechanism can set time at large (Jurong Primewide).
A clearly drafted notice condition precedent is enforceable; missing it costs the contractor the extension but does not set time at large (Diamond Glass).
Concurrent delay is not fully settled in Singapore; define it in the contract.
Under SOPA, deduct LDs in a timely payment response, with reasons and any certificate the contract requires.

Questions people ask

Are liquidated damages enforceable in Singapore?

Yes, if they are a genuine pre-estimate of the loss likely to flow from the breach, assessed at the time the contract was made. A clause is a penalty, and unenforceable, if the sum is extravagant and unconscionable compared with the greatest loss that could conceivably follow. The Court of Appeal confirmed this Dunlop-based test in Denka Advantech v Seraya Energy [2020] SGCA 119 and declined to adopt the UK legitimate-interest test from Cavendish v Makdessi.

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.

What happens if the owner causes delay and there is no extension of time clause?

Under the prevention principle, the owner cannot hold the contractor to a completion date that the owner's own acts made impossible. If the contract has no mechanism to extend time for that kind of act, time may be set at large. The contractor must then finish within a reasonable time, and the owner can only claim general damages for proven loss, not liquidated damages. Jurong Primewide v Crescendas Bionics [2019] SGCA 63 illustrates this.

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.

How is concurrent delay treated in Singapore?

The position is not fully settled. Standard forms such as PSSCOC tell the certifier to take concurrent contractor delays into account, but do not define concurrency. Singapore courts have reduced a party's delay liability where other events also contributed, and have analysed loss by asking whether a breach was an effective or dominant cause. The safest course is to define concurrent delay and its consequences in the contract.

Should a small fit-out contract have liquidated damages?

If late completion would cost the owner money, usually yes. Without LDs the owner must prove actual loss, which is slow and uncertain. For a small job, a simple clause works: a daily rate based on a written build-up of rent, holding-over and other costs, a cap if commercially necessary, a short list of extension grounds, a realistic notice period, and a defined certification step.

Can LDs be deducted from a progress payment under SOPA?

The respondent must state any amount withheld, with reasons, in the payment response; objections not raised there generally cannot be raised later in adjudication. The Act also tells adjudicators to disregard claims for damage, loss or expense that are not supported by an agreement on quantum or a certificate required by the contract. Owners should therefore have any required delay certificate in place before deducting, and take legal advice on contested deductions.

Are LDs capped?

Only if the contract says so. Many contracts cap total LDs at a percentage of the contract sum, but there is no statutory cap. A cap protects the contractor and makes the job easier to price; it also means that once the cap is reached, the owner bears further delay cost. Read the cap together with any clause that preserves or excludes general damages, such as PSSCOC clause 16.3.

Sources

14 sources. Official sources are marked dark. Links were checked when this guide was last updated.

elitigation.sgCourt of Appeal — Denka Advantech Pte Ltd and another v Seraya Energy Pte Ltd and another and other appeals [2020] SGCA 119, esp. [92], [99], [103]. https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2020_SGCA_119 (accessed Nov 2026) ↩↩
allenandgledhill.comAllen & Gledhill — “Court of Appeal affirms long-standing Dunlop test for contractual penalties.” https://www.allenandgledhill.com/sg/publication/articles/17609/court-of-appeal-affirms-long-standing-dunlop-test-for-contractual-penalties (accessed Nov 2026) ↩
isomer-user-content.by.gov.sgBuilding and Construction Authority — Public Sector Standard Conditions of Contract for Construction Works 2020 (8th edition, July 2020), clauses 14.2, 14.3, 16.1–16.4. https://isomer-user-content.by.gov.sg/338/5349d125-0337-4dc3-a36d-623e599f2865/1-psscoc-for-construction-works-2020.pdf (accessed Nov 2026) ↩↩↩↩↩
elitigation.sgAppellate Division of the High Court — Ser Kim Koi v GTMS Construction Pte Ltd and others and another appeal [2022] SGHC(A) 34, esp. [2], [32], [63]. https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2022_SGHCA_34 (accessed Nov 2026) ↩↩
legal500.comLegal 500 / Mondaq — “Extension of Time and Cl 23 SIA Conditions” (commentary on Ser Kim Koi v GTMS). https://www.legal500.com/intelligence/singapore/real-estate-and-construction/extension-of-time-and-cl-23-sia-conditions (accessed Nov 2026) ↩
elitigation.sgCourt of Appeal — Jurong Primewide Pte Ltd v Crescendas Bionics Pte Ltd and another appeal [2019] SGCA 63. https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2019_SGCA_63 (accessed Nov 2026) ↩↩
dwfgroup.comDWF — “Construction insights: Singapore” (November 2023), discussing Crescendas Bionics Pte Ltd v Jurong Primewide Pte Ltd [2023] SGHC(A) 9. https://dwfgroup.com/en/news-and-insights/insights/2023/11/construction-insights-singapore (accessed Nov 2026) ↩
legal500.comChancery Law Corporation, via Legal 500 — “Liquidated Damages – Post Termination and Gaymark,” discussing Diamond Glass Enterprise Pte Ltd v Zhong Kai Construction Co Pte Ltd [2022] SGHC(A) 44. https://www.legal500.com/intelligence/singapore/real-estate-and-construction/liquidated-damages-%E2%80%93-post-termination-and-gaymark (accessed Nov 2026) ↩↩↩
sg.vlex.comHigh Court — Aoki Corp v Lippoland (Singapore) Pte Ltd [1995] SGHC 50; [1995] 2 SLR 609 (vLex record). https://sg.vlex.com/vid/aoki-corporation-v-lippoland-842782857 (accessed Nov 2026) ↩↩
sia.org.sgSingapore Institute of Architects — Building Contracts Committee (SIA Building Contract 2016 suite). https://sia.org.sg/building-contracts-committee/ (accessed Nov 2026) ↩
cms.lawCMS — “Law and regulation of concurrent delay in Singapore” (CMS Expert Guide to Concurrent Delay). https://cms.law/en/int/expert-guides/cms-expert-guide-to-concurrent-delay/singapore (accessed Nov 2026) ↩
elitigation.sgCourt of Appeal — CAJ and another v CAI and another appeal [2021] SGCA 102, esp. [27], [55]–[57]. https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2021_SGCA_102 (accessed Nov 2026) ↩
sia.org.sgSingapore Institute of Architects — “REDAS – Launch of 4th Edition D&B Conditions of Contract [Webinar]” (18 March 2022). https://sia.org.sg/?p=6137 (accessed Nov 2026) ↩
sso.agc.gov.sgBuilding and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004, ss 11(3), 15(3), 17(3), 26(2)(b). Singapore Statutes Online. https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/BCISPA2004 (accessed Nov 2026) ↩↩↩↩

Cite or link to this guide

Use this guide in a report, a tender or a by-law briefing. Please link to the page so readers get the current version.

RRD Engr & Constr. (2026). Liquidated Damages and Extension of Time in Singapore: An Owner's and Contractor's Guide. RRD Field Guide. Updated 9 November 2026. https://rrd.sg/guides/liquidated-damages-extension-of-time-singapore/

Report a correction