Renovation spat: Couple win appeal, S$67,000 in damages

SINGAPORE — A couple have successfully appealed against a district judge’s decision ordering them to pay their neighbour for his work in building their dream home, with the High Court ruling instead that the man must pay them more than S$67,000 in damages for failing to complete certain rectification work.

The court battle started last year when retiree Edward Teo, 61 — who was hired by the couple to transform their property in Sembawang into an English country-style house similar to his — sued them for failing to pay him for the renovation work he had done.

In turn, the couple — Air Force Lieutenant-Colonel Ng Boo Han, in his 40s, and his wife Madam Audrey-Ann Koo Oi Lian, in her 50s — sued Mr Teo for delivering shoddy work and failing to rectify defects, but they lost the suit.

The couple had earlier asked Mr Teo to renovate their home after seeing his house. In January 2011, an agreement was signed stating that the renovation works would be completed by Aug 11 that year, within a budget of S$350,000, from which Mr Teo could draw S$17,500 as wages.

Their relationship soured after the couple became dissatisfied with the renovation work and refused to pay Mr Teo the remaining 20 per cent of the contract price.

Mr Teo sued them for S$89,000 — which he said was the money owed to him for his work and additional tasks. He said the renovation work was done to imitate the “rustic” concept of his own house, but that the rusticity was seen as defects by the couple, who demanded rectification.

In December last year, District Judge Loo Ngan Chor awarded Mr Teo S$47,000 in damages. The judge also commented that the couple had been “flim-flamming (Mr Teo) and squeezing him for more”, and that they had been “trying to extract their pound of flesh, when they were not even entitled to a jot of blood”.

The couple, having unsuccessfully counterclaimed almost S$200,000 for rectification work, then appealed against Judge Loo’s decision.

In the High Court ruling, which was released yesterday, Judicial Commissioner Edmund Leow based his decision on reports by a surveyor, identified as Mr Loggie in court documents, whom the couple had hired to give expert evidence on the defects to their property.

JC Leow granted claims for six of the 15 allegedly defective items listed in the appeal — such as the use of a zinc roof, instead of a ceramic tile roof as listed in the contract; and the use of a 4mm-thick glass for the study room panel, which is considered too thin, unsafe and below industry standards.

The High Court judge disallowed claims for other items, such as replacement of the timber deck as the couple had not specified in the contract that they preferred more durable material.

In total, the couple were awarded S$107,617.01 in damages, including S$99,250 for rectification of defects. After offsetting the S$40,000 they owed him, Mr Teo was ordered to pay the couple S$67,617.01, with a 5.33 per cent per annum interest, effective from the date of the counterclaim to the date of payment.

JC Leow said the district judge had erred in dismissing the couple’s counterclaim for rectification costs because there were inconsistences in their evidence. “Even assuming that no repair work had been carried out, the fact still remains that there were defects in Mr Teo’s work that required rectification,” JC Leow said.

JC Leow also described the critical remarks made by District Judge Loo about the couple, when delivering his judgment, as unnecessary. “Such remarks are, in my view, best avoided as they simply serve to compound the losing party’s sense of grievance, and might compel them to lodge appeals to vindicate themselves even though the cost of appealing is out of proportion to the sums at stake,” JC Leow said.