JUDGMENT

Chang Min Tat FJ (delivering the judgment of the Court):

The respondent (the contractor) was at all relevant times the building contractor employed by the appellant (the developer) to build six units of three storeyed shophouses at an agreed cost of $223,000.

The agreement between the parties is in writing. It is clear from the terms that the intention of the parties to the agreement was the construction of the project as a whole. The shophouses were not meant to be built one by one. The site was to be prepared in one operation and after its preparation, the piling work was to be commenced for all six houses. The construction was then to proceed by continuous work and the houses were expected to be constructed and ready for occupation at the same time. Thus the payment for the construction by the usual process of progress payments was made dependent upon the completion of the several stages of the entire construction as set out in the particular clause relating to the progress payments.

In the event, the contractor completed five of the six shophouses. He put in some work on the sixth shophouse which he was unable to complete because of a claim by a third party to ground