INTRODUCTION

In a landmark judgment made on 21 September 2026, a three-member coram of the Appellate Division of the High Court of Singapore (HC (AD)) held that a narrow interpretation of a review adjudicator’s scope of review applies, i.e.:

1. 1. Under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004 (SOP Act), the scope of a review adjudicator’s review is limited to the issues brought up by a review applicant (Narrow Interpretation). A party must lodge an Adjudication Review Application (ARA) to raise issues for review.
      
      
   2. The High Court in Ang Cheng Guan Construction Pte Ltd v Corporate Residence Pte Ltd [2017] 3 SLR 988 (Ang Cheng Guan) was not correct in deciding that a claimant (who could not apply for review under the pre-amendment SOP Act) could “piggyback” on a respondent’s ARA. Such “piggybacking” was not permissible, even within the framework of the pre-amendment SOP Act.

The judgment arose from an appeal by China Communications Construction Company Ltd (Singapore Branch) (CCCC) against Zhao Yang Geotechnic Pte Ltd (ZYG).

Director Chong Kuan Keong and Senior Associates Tay Yan Xia and Bernadette Loh acted successfully for CCCC in this matter.

Please note: This article has been written to provide early guidance on the SOP Act review regime, and is subject to further elaboration upon the publication of the HC (AD)’s written grounds of decision.

BACKGROUND

ZYG initiated an Adjudication Application (AA) against CCCC and obtained an Adjudication Determination (AD) mostly in ZYG’s favour.

Subsequently, CCCC lodged an ARA to challenge specific findings in the AD. Although ZYG did not lodge an ARA, ZYG sought to raise their own grievances regarding the AD during the review proceedings.

The Review Adjudicators in the ARA rejected ZYG’s position that the Review Adjudicators could review ZYG’s issues, as (1) ZYG had not filed their own ARA; and (2) ZYG’s issues had not been raised by CCCC in CCCC’s ARA (i.e., rejected the Broad Interpretation).

Dissatisfied with the determination of the ARA, ZYG applied to the General Division of the High Court (HC (GD)) to set the ARA determination aside. The HC (GD) ruled in favour of ZYG and held that the Broad Interpretation should apply.

CCCC appealed against the decision of the HC (GD).

DECISION OF THE HC (AD)

The appeal addressed a fundamental issue of interpretation of the SOP Act: Is a review adjudicator limited to reviewing only the specific issues raised by a review applicant in its ARA, or can the review adjudicator undertake a broader, de novo review of the entire adjudication determination, beyond the issues raised by a review applicant?

1. Narrow Interpretation is Correct – Review Scope Limited to Issues Raised by a Review Applicant

The HC (AD) noted that the amendments to the SOP Act, which took effect from 15 December 2019, created a dual-track approach under section 18(1) of the SOP Act, such that a claimant and a respondent should each lodge their own respective ARAs.

The HC (AD) agreed with CCCC that the Narrow Interpretation of the SOP Act review regime was correct, such that:

1. 1. a review adjudicator’s jurisdiction is circumscribed by the specific issues raised by a review applicant in its ARA. A review adjudicator does not possess an unbounded mandate to re-open or re-evaluate aspects of the original adjudication determination that have not been challenged by the review applicant; and
      
      
   2. if a party fails to lodge an ARA within the prescribed timeline and in compliance with the prescribed requirements and regulations, the party is not permitted to raise new issues for review and thereby circumvent such timeline, requirements, and regulations prescribed for the review process.

2. Disapproval of Ang Cheng Guan and the Broad Interpretation

The HC (AD) went further to address prior jurisprudence under the pre-amendment regime of the SOP Act – specifically, the High Court decision in Ang Cheng Guan.

• • In Ang Cheng Guan, the High Court adopted the Broad Interpretation in holding that a review adjudicator was entitled to review any matter in an adjudication determination, including those not specifically raised in the ARA.

• • In the present appeal, the HC (AD) explicitly held that Ang Cheng Guan was incorrectly decided on this point and that the Broad Interpretation should not apply, even under the pre-amendment SOP Act review framework.

CONCLUSION

The HC (AD)’s decision provides welcome commercial certainty and procedural fairness for parties navigating statutory adjudication in Singapore, firmly establishing that review adjudication under the SOP Act is an exercise of targeted review rather than a complete review de novo.

• • Finality of Unchallenged Findings: Parties can now rely on the principle that findings made by a primary adjudicator which are left unchallenged in a review application will remain final and binding within the review proceedings.

• • Targeted and Cost-Effective Review Applications: Review applicants must carefully frame their applications, as review adjudicators will not automatically re-examine unpleaded or unchallenged matters.

• • Risk Management for Both Parties: Parties in review proceedings, whether as review applicant or non-applicant, are protected against the risk of review adjudicators unexpectedly re-opening matters, unless explicitly raised for review.

Our team remains committed to advancing our clients’ legal and commercial interests across all stages of dispute resolution. For specific legal advice regarding adjudication strategy, payment claims, or review applications under the SOP Act, please contact our team.

The content of this article does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. Specific advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. Copyright in this publication is owned by Chong Chia & Lim LLC. This publication may not be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, in whole or in part, without prior written approval.