Goh Phai Cheng SC addressed two pertinent questions in relation to adjudication in the Singapore context:

1. Should an adjudicator ‘rubber stamp’ a claim in the event that there is no payment response addressing the merits of the claim?
2. Should a respondent who is dissatisfied with an adjudication determination make use of the SOP Act review procedure or take the matter to the High Court?

The recent Singapore cases cited by Goh Phai Cheng were helpful in addressing these questions.

Michael Christie SC, who was visiting Singapore en route from Sydney to London, highlighted the relevance to Singapore of case law from Australia, bearing in mind that the SOP Act was modelled on the equivalent New South Wales Act and the Singapore High Court has referred to Singapore cases. Michael Christie addressed the same question of whether an adjudicator should consider the merits of a claim when the respondent has made no submission. He then addressed the concept of ‘breach of procedural fairness’ with respect to an adjudicator’s responsibilities.

The Q&A session challenged the speakers, with valuable contributions being made by experienced adjudicators who attended the talk.