Background
SH Design & Build Pte Ltd applied to restrain Jurong Port Pte Ltd from receiving, and HSBC Life (Singapore) Pte Ltd from paying, $12.5698 million under a performance bond. The application concerned Jurong Port’s demand under a specified demand letter. An interim application had earlier restrained HSBC Life from paying under the bond pending the determination of the originating application.
In the substantive judgment, SH Design & Build Pte Ltd v Jurong Port Pte Ltd and another [2026] SGHC 159, the court held that the basis for Jurong Port’s call on the bond was invalid. It declared that HSBC Life was not obliged to make payment under the demand letter. This supplemental judgment determined the costs of both the originating application and the earlier interim application.
The Court’s Holding
Senior Judge Lee Seiu Kin ordered Jurong Port to pay SH Design & Build $50,000 in costs, plus reasonable disbursements to be taxed unless agreed. The award covered both proceedings. Although the contractor’s pleaded relief was wider than the relief it ultimately obtained, both parties’ substantive submissions had focused on the particular call made through the demand letter; any discount for the wider wording of the prayers was therefore de minimis.
The court held that the work justified an award above the $35,000 upper figure in Appendix G of the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021. The legal issues were generally not unusual, but the issue concerning clause 35 of the Public Sector Standard Conditions of Contract for Construction Works was new. The court did not take into account allegations impugning Jurong Port’s and the supervising officer’s integrity, as it had made no findings on them and they were unnecessary to the decision.
Key Takeaways
- Jurong Port must pay the contractor $50,000 plus reasonable disbursements for the two proceedings.
- Jurong Port must also pay HSBC Life $4,000 all-in for its costs.
- Costs may exceed Appendix G’s stated range where the overall work warrants it, even if most issues are not novel.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that performance-bond injunction disputes ordinarily turn on an actual or imminent specific call, rather than a general prohibition on every future call. A claimant’s overly broad formulation of relief may justify a costs reduction if it causes unnecessary work, but not where the parties in fact litigated only the concrete demand at issue.
It also illustrates that an issuer may properly be joined so that any order binds it, while the unsuccessful beneficiary bears the issuer’s costs where the claimant succeeds against that beneficiary.