SETTING ASIDE OF ADJUDICATOR �S DETERMINATION DUE TO THE BREACH OF NATURAL JUSTICE

Abstract

Natural justice stems from the common law in that decision-makers must adhere to a set of principles, viz., the fair hearing rule and the no bias rule, which can be modernized to mean procedural fairness. Failure to do so brings about repercussions such as disqualification of a tribunal.

Singapore’s Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (“SOPA”) provides that adjudicators have a wider obligation to comply with the principles of natural justice, thus, there is no express guidance in the SOPA itself which could imply a narrow obligation. These principles are flexible in their application and are ever developing through case laws, hence only the Courts could determine if there was failure to comply especially when cases are distinct. In this light, parties have submitted various claims on breaches of natural justice which mostly turned out frivolous as they coincidentally overlapped with natural justice incurring unnecessary expenses. Contrariwise, a setting aside of the Adjudication Determination due to a material breach renders zero payment to claimants. Both scenarios effectively delay payment pending a judgement as legal proceedings are long and costly which contradicts the underlying principle of fast and economical alternative dispute resolution to facilitate payment.

This dissertation acts on thematizing the numerous distinctive claims and assessing its threshold before the need to consider its materiality. The effects of the amendments to the SOPA was analysed to derive at a panacea to potentially mitigate if not eliminate the need for the Court’s intervention.