Background of the case
A married couple in Serangoon North, Singapore, claimed that long-running vibration-causing construction works for a nearby condominium caused damage to their house located across the road. The project, Affinity at Serangoon by L S Construction, involved demolition, piling, and later I-beam installation and extraction over more than two years.
The claimants, Mr Soh Chuan Swee and Madam Tok Beng Kee, sought damages for alleged construction negligence and later for negligent repair works undertaken by the builder on a goodwill basis. The dispute centers on whether vibrations from the works, and the subsequent repairs, breached a duty of care and caused the home’s alleged damage.
Timeline of works and early indicators
Preliminary surveys in October 2018 showed the claimants’ house, built between 2017 and 2018, was largely defect-free with existing cracks. Demolition started in November 2018, followed by piling in 2019, I-beam installation, and extraction from 2020 to April 2021. The claimants first noticed damage in October 2019, roughly two months after piling and before the I-beam phase, reporting cracks, damaged tiles, and water seepage during rain.
During the works, the builder offered repairs after an inspection, recorded in a January 7, 2020 letter, described as offered “without prejudice and without admission of liability.” The claimants did not initially allege vibration-related damage; other concerns included dust and barriers around the site.
Vibration evidence and monitoring
Two vibration monitors tracked project-side vibrations, with readings at the site perimeter consistently below 2 mm/s and well under the 5 mm/s limit. The applicant’s key physical claim relied on reports of a March 2020 vibration event during I-beam extraction that allegedly caused cracks in a granite floor and a swaying lighting fixture. The claimants presented some video, but the judge found the footage inconclusive, explaining that the visual evidence could reflect multiple causes and that the fixture’s design allowed for movement independent of structural damage.
The district judge, District Judge Samuel Wee, highlighted that the Building and Construction Authority cautioned there was no evidence that instrumentation data could be faked or misattributed to other sites. The construction monitors therefore supported the position that vibrations stayed within safe levels.
Legal analysis and the judge’s findings
Judge Wee assessed whether the builder breached its duty of care for the vibration-causing works. He noted that some vibration is inherent to such construction activities and found that evidence did not prove the works exceeded acceptable limits or caused the claimed damage. The claimants’ evidence, including the expert’s testimony, was deemed insufficient or non-objective by the court. The expert did not independently review monitoring data, and the opposing expert stated the damage described was cosmetic rather than structural, not attributable to vibrations below the measured thresholds.
The court also considered alternate causes, such as inherent defects in the claimants’ newly constructed home, and the existence of earlier cracks noted in the 2018 pre-condition survey. Because the claimants failed to establish all four elements of negligence—duty, breach, causation, and damages—the suit regarding vibration-caused damage was dismissed.
Repair works and goodwill efforts
As for the alleged negligent repairs performed on a goodwill basis, the builder argued it owed a duty of care during repair but asserted no breach occurred given the expressed limitations of the scope. The judge indicated that while goodwill repair demonstrates a duty, the claimants did not demonstrate the repairs were performed to a deficient standard, noting that photographs of the patched areas were insufficient to prove a breach of standard for repair work.
Conclusion and implications
Ultimately, the court rejected both the negligence claim regarding vibration-caused damage and the claim of negligent repairs. The decision aligns with the evidence that measured site vibrations remained within safe limits and that the alleged damage could have stemmed from factors unrelated to the construction activities. The case underscores the difficulty of proving causation and breach in complex construction projects, particularly when monitoring data indicates compliance with industry standards. The parties were invited to file submissions on costs.
What this means for homeowners and builders
For homeowners near active construction, this ruling illustrates the importance of robust, independent damage assessments and transparent, verifiable vibration monitoring. For builders, it reinforces the need to document compliance with vibration limits and to communicate clearly about the limitations of any repairs performed, particularly when offered on a goodwill basis.
Representatives: Claimants were represented by Anil Murkoth Changaroth; the builder by Terra Law. The decision was released in early October, with final cost decisions pending.
