Incomplete Work, Implied Duties, and Accountability: Lessons from Singapore’s Construction Law Ruling

In Flux Solutions Pte Ltd v Wong Beng Chee [2025] SGMC 58, the Singapore Magistrate’s Court, presided over by District Judge Samuel Wee, delivered a meticulous ruling that underscores the courts’ approach to contractual performance, implied duties of workmanship, and the evidentiary burden in negligence claims within the construction sector.

What's The Matter?

The case revolved around a dispute over waterproofing works performed at two adjacent Pasir Ris residences, where allegations of incomplete performance, negligent workmanship, and misrepresentation formed the crux of the counterclaims.

At the heart of the dispute was whether Flux Solutions, the waterproofing contractor, had completed the contractual scope under two detailed quotations amounting to SGD 62,060. While the contractor claimed completion and sought payment of the balance, the homeowner, Wong Beng Chee, alleged that substantial parts of the work were either incomplete or negligently executed, raising a counterclaim exceeding SGD 240,000.

The Court bifurcated the counterclaim between liability and damages and addressed both parties’ competing narratives in this stage of proceedings.

Judge Wee found that the quotations defined the contractual scope exhaustively and that works outside those terms such as waterproofing of toilets, external walls, and third-level balconies could not be implied as part of the agreement. However, the Court accepted that an implied term of reasonable skill and care applied to the works undertaken, reflecting the professional standard owed in such contracts.

Upon review of the evidence, the Court held that while some works such as those on reinforced concrete ledges, the skylight, and metal roof were satisfactorily performed, the claimant failed to prove completion of key components like the rooftop balcony, walkway, and pool works.

Crucially, the judge emphasized that the use of an alternative “nano-treatment” waterproofing system in place of the specified Davco K11 membrane constituted a material deviation without consent.

As the contract was on a lump-sum basis and lacked itemized valuations, the claim for the outstanding balance was dismissed, though the contractor retained the deposit as compensation for partially completed works.

Equally instructive was the treatment of the homeowner’s negligence and misrepresentation counterclaims.

The Court dismissed these on evidentiary grounds, clarifying that unperformed work could not simultaneously constitute negligent work, and that alleged advice failures could not give rise to liability absent proof of a breach of duty or causal link.

The judgment reaffirmed established principles from Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v DSTA [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100, holding that the mere existence of expertise does not transform commercial disagreement into tortious liability.

In conclusion, both the claim and counterclaim were dismissed. The decision reinforces the high evidentiary threshold for proving incomplete or negligent construction work and the narrow scope of implied obligations in fixed-price contracts.

It serves as a reminder to construction professionals and clients alike: contractual precision, contemporaneous records, and agreed variations remain the strongest safeguards against litigation in technical disputes.