Kopitiam founder sues contractor over ‘abandoned’ works on his Whitley Road property

The current dispute revolves around the building and construction works at his Whitley Road property in the prime District 11.

According to court documents, the 634.4 sq m property is made up of two adjacent parcels of land.

Lim initially owned one parcel, on which sits an existing house. He acquired the second parcel in early 2012. His plan was to build a new house to replace the existing one, and a second house on the other parcel of land.

In 2014, his employee, Per Poh Huat, recommended Pek Han Kok to be the contractor for the project.

Pek was the owner of Tiandi as well as a company called Future Innovation & Construction.

Lim engaged Future Innovation to carry out the works, which began in April 2016.

In 2017, Tiandi took over as the contractor for the project. The completion date under the contract was June 7, 2019.

In January 2019, Lim and his family moved into the first house, but the second house was never occupied.

The temporary occupation permit was issued in August 2019, but the works remained incomplete, he said.

“Tiandi remained on site and continued carrying out works in (both houses),” stated Lim’s opening statement.

The certificate of statutory completion was issued in September 2020.

In May 2021, Lim discovered that the works had been “abandoned”, and wrote to Pek to demand that the works be completed and rectified.

He and his family moved out in mid-2022. Since then, both houses have been unoccupied.

Lim, who is represented by Ng Kim Beng from Rajah & Tann, contended that Tiandi was in breach of contract by failing to complete the works and rectify the defective works.

The businessman added that Tiandi was the only party he contracted to carry out the works in the project.

He also asserted that Tiandi’s counterclaim should be dismissed.

Lim said he had paid, through his employee Per, at least $6.4 million, which exceeded the contract sum.

Tiandi, which is represented by Alfred Lim of Meritus Law, contended that there were two phases of construction works.

The company said it completed the first phase, which was approved by the authorities, with multiple structural and architectural drawings submitted.

“The second phase was not carried out by Tiandi. The second phase was carried out illegally. There were no drawings approved by the authorities,” said the defendant’s opening statement.