1. The dispute arose from works at Changi Airport, where Zhao Yang Geotechnic (the “Applicant” / “Zhao Yang”) sought payment from China Communications Construction Company (the “Respondent” / “China Communications”).
2. After an adjudicator determined the Respondent should pay the Applicant a reduced sum, the Respondent applied for an adjudication review, specifying certain issues.
3. The Applicant did not file its own review application but argued that the review panel could review the entire determination, not just the issues raised by the Respondent.
4. The review adjudicators declined to review the Applicant’s issues, ultimately reducing the adjudicated amount to nil.
5. Zhao Yang therefore sought to set aside an adjudication review determination (“ARD”) in favour of China Communications arguing that the review panel had misdirected itself in law.
1. The court addressed the following issues:
a. Whether misdirection in a point of law is a ground for setting aside the ARD;
b. Whether the review adjudicators are entitled to review the entire AD, or are limited to issue(s) identified by the Respondent (i.e. whether the Broad or Narrow Interpretation should be adopted);
c. If the Broad Interpretation is adopted, whether the ARD should be set aside or remitted back to the review adjudicators.
Whether misdirection in a point of law is a ground for setting aside the ARD
2. The Court confirmed that the misdirection in the present case concerns the review adjudicators’ duties or jurisdiction (i.e. a breach of a mandatory statutory provision) and is a valid ground for setting aside the ARD.
Whether review adjudicators entitled to review entire AD, or just limit to issue(s) identified by Respondent (Broad or Narrow Interpretation should be adopted)
3. The Court took the following approach in statutory interpretation:
a. The court must first ascertain the possible interpretations of the relevant statute, having regard not just to its text but also to the context of that provision within the written law.
b. The court must then ascertain the legislative purpose of the relevant provision and compare the possible interpretations of the provision against the purpose of the provision.
c. The court should first ascertain the purpose of a provision from its text and context (including other provisions within the statute) before evaluating whether consideration of extraneous material is necessary.
d. The court may only consider extraneous material to ascertain the meaning of the text if the provision is ambiguous or obscure on its face, or if the ordinary meaning of the provision leads to a manifestly absurd or unreasonable result.
4. The Court concluded that the wording of s 18(2) in the SOPA 2020 supports the Broad Interpretation, i.e. the review adjudicators are entitled to review the entire AD.
5. The Court rejected arguments that the 2018 amendments were intended to limit the scope of review or that each party must file its own review application to have its issues considered.
6. The Court also found that the Respondent's analogy to civil litigation appeals was unworkable due to the unique statutory scheme of SOPA.
If the broad interpretation was adopted, whether the ARD should be set aside or remitted back to review adjudicators.
7. Drawing parallels from the arbitration regime, the Court applied the factors in Vietnam Oil and Gas Group v Joint Stock Company (Power Machines – ZTL, LMZ, Electrosila Energomachexport) [2025] 2 SLR 273 in determining whether a case ought to be remitted to the review adjudicators. The Court held that:
a. There was no concern that the review adjudicators would not be able to afford the parties a fair process in its consideration of the remitted issues as the review adjudicators undertook a detailed analysis which was defensible albeit one which the Court did not agree with.
b. The failure to consider the issues identified by the Applicant only related to part of the ARD.
c. The third factor on whether pleadings need to be amended is irrelevant as there are no equivalent of pleadings in adjudication.
d. This approach would result in significant time and cost savings.
8. Either party who files for an adjudication review opens the entire adjudication determination for review, not just the issues they raise. Both claimants and respondents should be prepared for all issues to be reconsidered in a review, regardless of which party files the application
9. Parties dissatisfied with an adjudication determination should not rely on the other side filing for review to have their own issues considered. Proactive filing remains prudent, but the risk of “ambush” by new issues is mitigated by the expectation that all matters are open for review.
10. The Court signalled a preference for remitting ARDs for further consideration, rather than setting them aside entirely, to save time and costs.
11. This decision provides welcome clarity for the construction industry and dispute resolution practitioners, confirming that adjudication reviews under SOPA are broad in scope. Parties involved in adjudication reviews should be aware that the entire determination is open for review once an application is lodged.
