LP Thean J:

These are two appeals by the plaintiffs against the two orders respectively of the Assistant Registrar made on 4 August 1987 on the following applications:summons-in-chambers No. 3228 of 1987 by the plaintiffs for final judgment for the amount claimed against the defendants under O. 14 of the Rules of Supreme Court and summons-in-chambers No. 3264 of 1987 by the defendants for a stay of the plaintiffs'action and all further proceedings under s. 7 of the Arbitration Act (Cap. 10, 1985 edn.). Both the applications were heard together by the learned Assistant Registrar, and at the conclusion thereof he allowed the defendants' application and made no order on the plaintiffs' application.

By an agreement in writing dated 15 September 1982 ("the Main Contract"), the defendants were engaged by Marina Centre Holdings Pte. Ltd. ("the Owner") as the main contractor for the construction of a huge development, called Marina Centre, on the land known as URA Land Parcels 83, 84, 85 and 86, Singapore. The plaintiffs are the sub-contractors of the defendants in respect of mechnical works at the Marina Centre. The sub-contract was initially made between the defendants and Carl P. Wallace International, Inc. ("Carl Wallace") by two documents dated 16 September 1982 and 10 August 1983 ("the Sub-Contract"), but sub-sequently by an agreement in writing made on 13 August 1985, the plaintiffs assumed the obligations, and took over the rights, of Carl Wallace and become a sub-contractor of the defendants.

Under Clause 11(a) of the Sub-contract, the defendants are obliged, subject to and in accordance with the Main Contract, from time to time make application to the architect in charge of the development for certificates of payment and for the inclusion therein of the amounts which at the date thereof fairly represent the total value of the works, materials or goods executed or supplied by the plaintiffs that may be included therein under that Clause. On such application being made the architect will and subject to the terms of the Main Contract issue a certificate of payment and direct the defendants as to the total value of works, materials or goods executed or supplied by the plaintiffs included in the calculation of the amount stated as due in such certificate and inform the plaintiffs in writing of the amount of such total value. Under Clause 11(b) of the sub-contract, the defendants shall within five days of receipt of the sum included in any certificate of the architect notify and pay to the plaintiffs the total value certified in the certificate of the architect less: (i) retention money, (ii) any sums to which the defendants may be entitled in respect of delay in the completion of the sub-contract works and (iii) the amount previously paid.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Main Contract, the architect on 12 March 1987 issued a Certificate No. S. 59 in the sum of $5,063,173, and a sum of $1,698,297 was included therein as the total value of the sub-contract works executed by the plaintiffs. In consequence of the architect's certificate, the defendants by their certificate for payment No. 52 dated 20 March, 1987 certified to the plaintiffs that, after deduction by the defendants of the retention money, "contra charges", the amounts previously paid and the balance of the advanced payments made, the amount due to the plaintiffs is$924,711. Nothwithstanding the issue of this certificate of payment, the defendants declined to pay to the plaintiffs the amount of $924,711 or any part thereof and the reason for their refusal to pay is this. On 2 February 1987 the architect issued to the Owner a certificate under Clause 22 of the Main Contract in the following terms:

The original completion date for the above Works was specified in the Appendix to the Conditions of Contract as 23 March 1985. In accordance with Clause 23 of the Conditions of Contract, Hyundai Engineering and Construction Co Limited have been granted reasonable extension