Overview: Court Rejects Vibration Negligence Claim Against Builder
A married couple in Singapore failed to prove negligence by a condominium builder whose vibration-intensive works were conducted across the road from their home. In a judgment released on Saturday, a district judge dismissed the lawsuit against L S Construction, which built Affinity at Serangoon in Serangoon North Avenue 1. The decision underscores the challenges of tying construction-related vibrations to specific damage, especially when monitoring data shows vibrations within safety limits.
Background: The Site, the House, and the Timeline
The Affinity at Serangoon project involved both high-rise apartments and strata landed houses. The claimants’ residence sits about 12 meters from the construction site. A pre-condition survey in October 2018 indicated the house was generally defect-free at that time, though some existing cracks were noted. Demolition began in November 2018, followed by piling in 2019 and I-beam installation and extraction from 2020 to April 2021.
The claimants, Mr Soh Chuan Swee and Mrs Tok Beng Kee, said they first noticed damage in October 2019—roughly two months after piling and before the I-beam work—citing cracks in a wall, glass blocks, and water seepage through front-porch tiles after rain.
Claims and Company’s Response
The couple sued the builder for negligent vibration-causing works and negligent repairs. The builder offered some repairs on a goodwill basis, patching cracks and sealing water seepage, but the claimants found the patched areas uneven and unattractive. WhatsApp messages indicated the builder’s willingness to repair after inspection, yet the January 7, 2020 letter framed the offer as made “on a without prejudice and without admission of liability basis.”
Evidence on Vibrations and Damages
Key testimony centered on vibration measurements. Monitors placed at the site’s northern and southern perimeters recorded vibrations under 2 mm/s, well below the 5 mm/s limit. The claimants argued that the vibrations were excessive, but the judge found the records credible and uncontradicted by substantiated evidence from the claimants.
Mr Soh, who has over 50 years in construction, testified that vibrations caused cracks and a swaying lighting fixture in March 2020 during I-beam extraction. The judge characterized his video evidence as not definitive, noting its ambiguity. The defense expert testified the damage was cosmetic and not due to vibration.
Judicial Findings
District Judge Samuel Wee ruled that the claimants failed to establish four elements of negligence: a duty of care, breach, causation, and damages caused by the builder’s vibration works. The judge also found the evidence regarding the repairs inconclusive: the claimants did not specify a standard of care for the repairs or demonstrate how the repairs fell short.
The decision highlighted that vibrations are an expected part of such construction projects. The judge emphasized that the claimants did not demonstrate a causal link between the vibrations and the alleged damage, noting the lack of similar complaints from neighboring property owners and the pre-existing cracks documented before construction began.
Aftermath and Costs
The court dismissed the negligence claims and invited submissions on costs. The two sides were represented by different firms: the claimants by ChangAroth Chambers, and the builder by Terra Law. The ruling serves as a reminder that correlation between construction activity and private property damage must be robustly established with credible, objective evidence, especially when monitoring data shows vibrations within regulatory thresholds.
Implications for Homeowners and Builders
For homeowners near ongoing or completed construction projects, this case illustrates the importance of robust documentation, pre- and post-construction surveys, and credible expert testimony. Builders, in turn, may rely on vibration monitoring data and industry-standard practices to defend against claims of negligence, provided damages can be definitively linked to external factors or are proven to be consistent with normal construction-induced vibrations.
Conclusion
While construction naturally causes vibration, establishing that such vibrations caused specific damages requires solid, corroborated evidence. In this instance, the court concluded that the claimant’s case did not meet the necessary legal standards, resulting in a dismissal of the negligence claims against the builder.
