JUDGMENT

Chao Hick Tin JC

These winding-up proceedings were first initiated by Haller (Far East) Pte Ltd on 22 November 1986 on the ground that the debtor company, Mechanised Construction Pte Ltd, owed Haller a sum of $64,297.96. The petition of Haller was based on neglect by the company to pay up the sum demanded within three weeks of the issue of the statutory notice. On 17 November 1987, by an order of court, Haller was given leave to withdraw its petition and in its place, Boustead Services Pte Ltd ('Boustead') was granted leave to be substituted as the petitioning creditor. The substituted petition was filed on 22 December 1987. The ground upon which the substituted petitioner sought to rely to wind up the company was that the latter neglected to pay or satisfy a statutory notice of demand dated 20 January 1987 for a sum of $141,036.79.

The sum of $141,036.79 was alleged to be due from the company to Boustead under a sale contract dated 30 June 1985 whereby Boustead agreed to supply, fabricate and install structural steelworks of an estimated total weight of 201 metric tonnes at the rate of $1,490 per tonne, making an estimated total of $299,490. These materials and services were required in connection with the Katong Convent Secondary School project, in which the company was a sub-contractor. Under the contract the time for completing the works was to be 'four to five months from confirmation of order and on condition that the site is available to (Boustead) within two weeks after confirmation of order'. Payment was to be made by 'monthly progressive at 30 days upon invoicing'. On 5 July 1985, in accepting the offer from Boustead, the company stated that it agreed and accepted 'the sales contract for a total lump sum price of $299,490 subject to final quantity'. The site was only made available to Boustead on 10 August 1985.

The company alleged that the progress of work undertaken by Boustead 'was extremely slow'. The company asserted that the original completion date should have been 10 January 1986 (five months from 10 August 1985). On 8 November 1985, Boustead submitted a revised programme to the company to complete the works by 7 April 1986. The company indicated that, without prejudice to its rights, it agreed to the revised programme. Thereafter, the progress of the work still appeared to be slow, so much so that on 3 March 1986, the company reminded Boustead that their delay had caused delay to other works relating to 'roof tile installation and subsequent windows plastering, screwing and ceiling below the roofs'. In their reply of 5 March 1986, Boustead admitted that 'the rate of progress at the site prior to the beginning of this year (was) unfortunately slow' but added that 'efforts (had) been made since to speed up the work both at site and in our workshop'. Boustead also said that 'this rate of progress will be difficult to maintain if progressive payment due to us is not forthcoming'.

Thereafter works would appear to remain slow as the company alleged that by April 1986, only about 35 tonnes of trusses had been installed and that by 26 April 1986, the company had paid $60,000 to Boustead, more than what was due to Boustead. That sum was said to be equivalent to payment for 40 tonnes of installed trusses. The minutes of a site meeting on 18 April 1986 recorded that 'there are presently 40 trusses yet to be laid in order that the entire roofing might be finished on time'. On 19 May 1986, Boustead was warned by the company to complete the works by 15 June 1986, failing which the company would terminate the contract for 'breaching the time frame and (would) continue the remaining work on (its) own' so that the school project would not be jeopardized. The company ceased to make any payment to Boustead since May 1986. The entire works were not completed until 26 August 1986, a delay of four months and 20 days counting from the date on which the works should have been completed in accordance with the revised programme.

I