Project Description
ERIC NG
Eric Ng graduated from the National University of Singapore in 1985 on a PSC Scholarship. He joined the Attorney General’s Chambers as a State Counsel in 1986 and successfully defended the Registrar in Drilex Systems Pte Ltd v Registrar of Companies.In 1991, Eric Ng joined the private practice first at M/s Lee & Lee, and later at Shook Lin & Bok where he was made partner within three years, before striking out in 1999 to set up his partnership at Ng & Koh and now Malkin & Maxwell LLP.
Eric Ng’s focus is in the area of construction law. He was instrumental in the formation of first the Natural Stone Association, and later, the Specialist Trades Association, Singapore (“STAS”), comprising 10 trades associations that collectively represent most of the specialists in the construction industry.
As legal adviser to the 10 trades associations, he led the industry in their campaign for new laws to facilitate progress payment : the cash flow that constitutes the life blood of the industry. During his campaign, he led the trades associations in dialogues with Members of Parliament, Government Authorities and other stakeholders in the construction industry.
The campaign succeeded in 2004 when the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act was passed and it came into operation in 2005. For details of this campaign
Pursuant to the new legislation, the Singapore Mediation Centre set up a panel of adjudicators to adjudicate on claims for payment in 2005. Eric Ng is now an [adjudicator] accredited with the Singapore Mediation Centre. In his capacity as adjudicator, he has presided over numerous claims brought by parties in the construction industry. This is over and above the numerous cases where Eric represented claimants or respondents in adjudications under this legislation.
NOTABLE BRIEF
In 2015, our lawyer was the adjudicator in SOP AA 188/2015 where he was faced with a problem posed by three contract documents A, B and C. It transpired that document A was a tender document. Document B was a summary of negotiations which over-rode the tender document. But document C was the terms of contract similar to document A and last to be signed. Document B and C contradicted each other on the permissible date for claims under the contract. Our adjudicator held that document B prevailed because it was the later negotiated document.
Unfortunately, the High Court judge did not agree and set aside his determination.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal in Grouteam v UES Holding held that the High Court judge was wrong. Instead, the Court of Appeal vindicated our adjudicator’s decision and reinstated the determination. The crux of the matter was this — even though document C was signed later than document B, nevertheless it was a reproduction of an earlier document in a tender. The parties must have intended document B to over-ride the earlier document in the tender. This decision shows how interpretation of contract documents can be a tricky matter that may stump even a High Court judge.”
CONTACT
T: 6338 0428
F: 6533 2339
M: 8511 0130
E: eric@malkin-maxwell.com
