High Court Clarifies the Scope of Review Adjudicator’s Powers of Review under the SOP Act

The General Division of the High Court’s recent decision in Zhao Yang Geotechnic Pte Ltd v China Communications Construction Company Ltd (Singapore Branch) [2026] SGHC 823 (“Zhao Yang”) marks an important development in the law on review adjudications under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004 (“SOP Act”). This decision clarifies the scope of issues reviewable by a review adjudicator, and raises strategic consequences for parties contemplating whether to apply for review.

Facts 

In Zhao Yang, the Respondent engaged the Applicant as a subcontractor to carry out geotechnical works at Singapore Changi Airport. On 30 April 2025, the Applicant served its Payment Claim No. 62 in the sum of approximately S$7,210,109.37. The Respondent issued a payment response for a nil amount. 

The Applicant therefore commenced an adjudication under the SOP Act. In the adjudicator’s determination (“AD”), the adjudicator determined that the Respondent was to pay the Applicant the adjudicated amount of S$3,541,361.21. The Respondent subsequently applied for an adjudication review (“ARA”), identifying specific issues in the AD with which it disagreed. 

The Applicant did not make its own review application, but took the position in the ARA that the review panel was entitled to review the entire AD, including issues identified by the Applicant. 

In the premises, the review panel invited both parties to submit on whether the Applicant may raise its own issues for review when it did not apply for a review of the Determination. In their Adjudication Review Determination (“ARD”), the review panel determined that it was entitled to determine only issues identified by the Respondent (i.e., the adjudication review applicant), and declined to review issues raised by the Applicant. 

The Applicant therefore filed an application in the General Division of the High Court to set aside the ARD. 

Clarification of the Review Adjudicator’s Powers

The enactment of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment (Amendment) Act 2018 (Act 47 of 2018) (“2018 Amendment”) introduced significant changes to the adjudication review framework under the SOP Act. 

Prior to the 2018 Amendment, only a respondent aggrieved by an adjudication determination was entitled to apply for adjudication review. 

Against this legislative backdrop, the High Court in Ang Cheng Guan Construction Pte Ltd v Corporate Residence Pte Ltd [2017] 3 SLR 988 (“Ang Cheng Guan”) held that the review adjudicator was entitled to review the entire adjudication determination, and was not confined to the specific issues identified by the review applicant (i.e., the “Broad Interpretation”).

Following the 2018 Amendment, s 18(2) of the SOP Act was amended to allow both claimants and respondents to apply for adjudication review. This raises the question of whether Ang Cheng Guan remains good law under the amended regime. 

Two competing views have emerged. One view is that Ang Cheng Guan has been superseded by the 2018 Amendment, and that the correct position is now reflected in the Narrow Interpretation, i.e., that each dissatisfied party must file its own adjudication review application, failing which, that party is taken to have waived its right to seek review of the issues adverse to it. 

The opposing view maintains that the statutory language has remained materially unchanged and that nothing in the amended provisions evinces a legislative intention to depart from the Broad Interpretation endorsed in Ang Cheng Guan. 

The High Court took a more expansive approach and adopted the Broad Interpretation, holding that once a review is properly commenced, a review adjudicator is entitled to review all issues arising from the adjudication even if those issues were not specifically referred by the review applicant. In effect, a review adjudicator has carte blanche to revisit all issues properly before the adjudicator at first instance, subject to the confines of the SOP Act.

This has practical consequences, as a review adjudication may potentially be expected to now entail wholesale reconsideration of the underlying adjudication.

Risks of the wait-and-see approach

The High Court emphasised that any party wishing to challenge an adjudication determination should itself apply for review. A party who elects not to do so itself runs the risk of losing the right to review the adjudication completely (Zhao Yang at [32]), in the event that the other party chooses not to apply for an adjudication review.

Put simply, the High Court rejected the notion that a party can safely sit back and rely on another party’s review application to reopen the entire adjudication in its favour. If a party does not apply for adjudication review, then any detriment suffered would be self‑inflicted.

Potential “free rider” issue. The Respondent argued that the Broad Interpretation would allow a non‑applicant to benefit from a “free-ride” on the application fees paid by the review applicant. The High Court rejected this argument and clarified that any perceived unfairness could be dealt with by the review adjudicator when determining costs of the adjudication review (Zhao Yang at [32]).

Potential ambush. The Respondent further argued that the Broad Interpretation would permit a non‑applicant to “ambush” the review applicant by belatedly raising new issues. The High Court rejected this argument and explained that if the law is clear that a review adjudicator is entitled to review the entire adjudication application, there can be no ambush, since a review applicant would reasonably expect all issues to be open for review. The High Court further observed that the issues raised at the review stage would likely have already been ventilated during the underlying adjudication, such that a review applicant ought reasonably to be able to anticipate the arguments the opposing party may advance (Zhao Yang at [33]).

Consistent with the statutory scheme and purpose of the SOP Act

Finally, the High Court underscored that the Broad Interpretation aligns with the text, structure, and purpose of the SOP Act, in particular, Section 18(2) of the SOP Act. 

In considering the language employed in the SOP Act, the High Court took the view that if Parliament intended for the review adjudicator or review panel to only review part of the underlying adjudication determination, it could have easily inserted language to that effect in the relevant provisions governing adjudication review (Zhao Yang at [31]). 

In the circumstances, the High Court remitted the ARD back to the review panel for review of the issues identified by the Applicant. 

Concluding observations

This decision clarifies the scope of issues reviewable by a review adjudicator. Parties must now assume that once a review is commenced, all issues in the underlying adjudication are potentially live, and choosing not to proactively apply for review is a high-risk decision. 

From a practical standpoint, this decision reinforces the need for early, decisive, and pre-emptive strategy when responding to an adverse adjudication determination under the SOP Act.