Foreign worker charity ordered by High Court to pay contractor over $1 million in renovation costs

A charity which supports foreign domestic workers (FDWs) has been ordered by a High Court judge to pay $1.06 million to a contractor for renovation works.

Foreign Domestic Worker Association for Social Support and Training (FAST), which provides skills training and social support for FDWs, was sued by E-Tech Building Services, according to a judgment dated Jan 16.

The civil suit was regarding renovation and refurbishment works E-Tech carried out for FAST in 2020 on the charity’s property at 3 Chin Cheng Avenue near Eunos.

The 68-page judgment from Justice Christopher Tan detailed the disputes the two parties had, most of which were over builder’s works such as demolition and general cleaning.

FAST had proposed to lease the property, located at the former Telok Kurau Secondary School, from the Singapore Land Authority in 2019 to build a hub providing services to FDWs.

The hub was officially launched in November 2022. A Straits Times report noted it had karaoke rooms, a culinary studio, and an aerobics and dance hall.

Though FAST and E-Tech did not reach a binding agreement on the hub’s retrofitting and operation, E-Tech commenced works on the property around March 2020.

Midway through the works, which lasted for about seven months, the property was used to house migrant workers during the Covid-19 pandemic.

FAST had agreed to pay for the works performed by E-Tech on the property, and the primary issue at trial was how much it should pay.

Dispute over labour costs

E-Tech’s claims fell into three main categories: builder’s works; a profit, attendance and project management (P&A) fee; and non-builder’s works.

The claim for builder’s works alone amounted to $798,643, of which FAST was prepared to pay only $376,645 as it argued there was insufficient documentary evidence to show the works were done.

Regarding labour costs, FAST took issue with the absence of any records logging the time slots of work done by E-Tech’s workers.

One disputed item involved $600 in labour costs for E-Tech’s workers for the construction of concrete steps.

Allowing the claim, Justice Tan said it was clear from photos that the steps were constructed, and FAST did not dispute this.

“As such, it would be wrong for E-Tech to be reimbursed only for cost of the materials (that is, concrete and steel) while remaining out of pocket for the labour it had deployed to construct the steps,” said the judge.

The judge added that FAST did not cite any evidence to suggest that fewer men or a shorter time was required to complete the construction works.

FAST also complained that a receipt for cleaning equipment included $1 spent on buying newspapers, which Justice Tan had allowed by noting, “I do not see why newspapers cannot be used for cleaning”.

He added there were points where he wondered “if FAST had lost its sense of proportion, taking up High Court trial time bickering over such miniscule amounts”.

A significant dispute involved fire-protection services, including $68,200 as costs of a regulatory submission, which E-Tech had engaged a subcontractor to prepare for the Singapore Civil Defence Force.

FAST objected by saying it had never seen the regulatory submission allegedly filed with the authorities.

Ruling in favour of E-Tech, Justice Tan pointed out that migrant workers had begun moving into the property from April 2020, and they could have done so only if regulatory requirements had been complied with.

Records ‘in shambles’

Justice Tan disallowed several of E-Tech’s claims because of a lack of evidence.

For example, the highest claim for labour in E-Tech’s entire case – standing at $19,200 – was unsupported by any invoices or receipts, said the judge.

Justice Tan also remarked that the manner in which E-Tech proved its claims for the fire-protection services was unsatisfactory.

The judge said given that E-Tech’s documentary records were “in shambles”, it could have shortened the fact-finding process by calling its subcontractors as witnesses, but it did not do so.

The P&A fee claim, which E-Tech pegged at 15 per cent of the building works, was dismissed.

Justice Tan said E-Tech failed to show that the 15 per cent margin was a reasonable estimate, among other reasons for rejecting the claim.

On non-builder’s works such as furniture and electrical fixtures, Justice Tan agreed with FAST that it should pay only $59,723 of the $182,936 E-Tech claimed because of insufficient documentation.

E-Tech was represented by Mr Daniel Tay and Mr Wan Chi Kit of BR Law Corporation, and Mr Lee Yun Long of Chan Neo LLP. Ms Lim Bee Li and Mr Wong Zhen Yang from Chevalier Law acted for FAST.

Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

E Tech Building Services Pte Ltd v Foreign Domestic Worker Association for Social Support and Training (FAST) [2026] SGHC 12

ADV: Career Coaching Skills for Legal Leaders: Engage, Develop and Retain Your Talent Man asks HDB to repossess flat so that ex-wife will get less money