Case: PSSCOC Clause 35.1 Supervising Officer Decisions and Bond Enforcement – Key Takeaways from SH Design v Jurong Port [2026] SGHC 159

This case revolves around whether Jurong Port Pte Ltd (Jurong Port) reliance on the SO’s clarification was sufficient to justify calling on the performance bond (PB) worth S$12.57 million issued by HSBC Life (Singapore) Pte Ltd, and whether SH Design & Build Pte Ltd (SH Design) could restrain enforcement until arbitration resolved the underlying disputes.

The Court upholds injunction of performance bond.

Background:

SH Design was engaged as main contractor for Jurong Port’s Ready Mixed Concrete Ecosystem project, valued at S$128.7 million after variations. Delays occurred across multiple phases, with disputes over entitlement to extensions of time. Certificates of Substantial Completion were issued, and Jurong Port commenced operations in 2024.

Under the Public Sector Standard Conditions of Contract (PSSCOC), SH Design furnished a PB worth S$12.57 million (10% of contract sum). The bond was conditional, requiring written notice of contractual breach.

The chronological sequence of key events:

1. July 2025, Jurong Port first demanded the PB but withdrew after a settlement framework.

2. August 2025, Jurong Port referred the dispute to the Supervising Officer (SO) under Clause 35.1 PSSCOC.

3. 5 Sept 2025, the SO stated he lacked authority to determine liquidated damages but acknowledged delays.

4. 6 Oct 2025, the SO clarified, quantifying liquidated damages at S$13.22m.

5. Jurong Port then issued a second demand for the full PB sum. SH Design filed OA 1204/2025 sought an injunction against the call on the PB.

This case highlights the interaction between PSSCOC’s fast-track dispute mechanism and performance bond enforcement, testing how preliminary SO decisions and clarifications affect employers’ rights to call on bonds. It underscores the importance of precise compliance with contractual dispute resolution clauses before invoking security instruments.