This produced much controversy as the introduction did not precede the usual consultations that the Joint Contracts Tribunal follows with affected parties and users. As acknowledged by the draftsman, “once the broad parameters of the contract were decided upon, no pressures were brought to bear on the draftsman in regard to the wording to be used or the procedural machinery evolved to give effect to its many new ideas”.1 It is the view of the draftsman that “it is far better to have no standard form than a bad standard form…. Equally, it is far better to have a good standard form of unilateral provenance than a bad standard form of joint or agreed provenance.”2

The previous form in use in Singapore was the Singapore Institute of Architects form published in 1970 (SIA 70). This form was taken from JCT 63.

This paper will look at the law in the UK, on which much of Singapore law is based, relating to extensions of time and liquidated damages. The relevant clauses in the fourth edition of the Singapore Institute of Architects form published from 1980 onwards (“SIA”) will be examined.3 The cases on the JCT series of forms will be used as a benchmark for examination and comment.

The reason for the selection of this area is that there are only three significant cases on the current form: Tropicon Contractors Pte Ltd v. Lojan Properties Pte Ltd ,4 Assoland Construction Pte Ltd v. Malayan Credit Properties Pte Ltd ,5 Aoki Corporation v. Lippoland (Singapore) Pte Ltd ,6 all relating to the notice requirements in the extensions of time provisions.

---

230