Overview of the case
A Singapore couple sued the builder of a Serangoon North condominium for allegedly causing vibration-related damage to their home across the road. The dispute centered on two sets of works: the vibration-causing construction activities at the developer’s site and subsequent repair works performed by the builder. After more than two years of activity surrounding the project, the court ruled in favor of the builder, finding the claimants failed to prove negligence on either front.
The construction timeline and alleged damage
The defendant, L S Construction, was building Affinity at Serangoon, a development comprising apartments and strata landed houses. The claimants’ house sits about 12 meters away from the site, with a pre-condition survey in October 2018 showing the property generally defect-free aside from pre-existing cracks. Construction included demolition (Nov 2018), piling (2019), I-beam installation, and extraction through April 2021.
The claimants asserted that damage began in October 2019—roughly two months after piling started and before I-beam extraction—citing cracks, damaged tiles, and water seepage linked to vibrations when the I-beams were removed. They also pointed to dust and perceived inadequacies in site barriers as contributing factors, though these were not tied directly to the alleged structural damage.
The parties’ positions on repairs and liability
The builder offered repairs on a goodwill basis, patching cracks and addressing water seepage. The claimants criticized the patchwork as uneven and unattractive. The core legal questions were whether the builder breached its duty of care in conducting vibration-causing works and whether the initial repairs were negligently performed.
Evidence presented
The builder relied on vibration monitoring data showing site-perimeter measurements well below the applicable thresholds (under 2 mm/s versus a 5 mm/s limit). Monitoring devices were placed at the north perimeter and across the road, allegedly demonstrating that the construction did not generate harmful vibration magnitudes. The claimants disputed the data, but provided no convincing evidence to rebut the monitors or to prove that the data could be misrepresented.
Witness testimony from the claimants, including Mr Soh’s decades of construction experience, suggested a belief that the vibrations were excessive. However, the judge found the evidence unpersuasive, noting that the claimed “gasoline” of vibration was not demonstrated to have caused the observed damage and that the alleged issues could stem from pre-existing defects or other non-vibration-related factors.
Judicial findings
District Judge Samuel Wee concluded that the claimants failed to establish all required elements of negligence. The judge observed that vibrations are a normal consequence of such construction work and that the recorded vibration levels remained within safe limits. The claimants were unable to prove a direct causal link between the vibration-causing works and the alleged damages to their home, nor could they prove the repairs breached a standard of care.
Regarding the repair works, the judge found that although the repairs were offered on a goodwill basis, the claimants did not demonstrate a defined standard of care or how the repairs fell short of that standard. The court did, however, acknowledge the goodwill nature of the repairs but ultimately dismissed the negligence claims as unproven.
Implications and next steps
The ruling underscores the high evidentiary bar in claims of construction-induced damage, particularly in comparing observed damages against expert monitoring data. For homeowners near active sites, it highlights the importance of robust, independent vibration measurements and objective cause-and-effect analyses when alleging structural impact. Builders and developers may also take this as a reminder to maintain transparent, well-documented monitoring and to engage early with residents when concerns arise.
Who represented whom
The claimants were represented by Anil Murkoth Changaroth of ChangAroth Chambers, while L S Construction was defended by Terra Law’s team of lawyers.
