Case Details
- Citation: [2026] SGCDT 1
- Title: JET v JEU
- Court: Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal (CDRT) (State Courts of the Republic of Singapore)
- Date: 11 February 2026 (metadata); judgment delivered 17 March 2022 (as stated in the published reasons)
- Judges: Tribunal Judge Lee Li Choon
- Claimant/Applicant: JET
- Defendant/Respondent: JEU
- Claim No.: 299 of 2021
- Hearing date: 4 March 2022
- Decision date: 17 March 2022
- Legal area: Neighbour dispute; access to property; unreasonable interference with enjoyment or use of a place of residence
- Statutes Referenced: Community Disputes Resolution Act 2015 (“CDRA”)
- Key statutory provision: s 4 CDRA
- Cases Cited: [2026] SGCDT 1 (as provided in metadata)
- Judgment length: 18 pages, 4,012 words
Summary
JET v JEU is a decision of the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal (“CDRT”) concerning a neighbour dispute arising from persistent water seepage affecting a claimant’s terrace house. The claimant sought an order compelling her neighbour to permit access to the neighbour’s rooftop so that repair and waterproofing works could be carried out on an exposed boundary wall forming part of the claimant’s building structure. The tribunal framed the dispute under s 4 of the Community Disputes Resolution Act 2015 (“CDRA”), which prohibits an individual from, by act or omission, causing unreasonable interference with a neighbour’s enjoyment or use of the neighbour’s place of residence.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had established necessity: the evidence showed that rainwater ingress through cracks and defects in the exposed wall was causing dampness and consequential damage inside the claimant’s property, with risks extending beyond the claimant’s home. The tribunal preferred the claimant’s expert evidence over the neighbour’s competing explanations, concluding that arresting water ingress required works on the exposed wall, which in turn required rooftop access to the neighbour’s property for the contractor’s workers to perform the waterproofing safely.
On the second limb—whether the neighbour’s refusal amounted to unreasonable interference—the tribunal held that the refusal, in the circumstances, crossed the threshold of “unreasonable interference” under s 4 CDRA. The tribunal therefore granted the claimant the specific relief she sought, ordering access for the limited purpose of carrying out the necessary repair and waterproofing works, rather than treating the dispute as a purely private contractual or construction disagreement between the parties’ developer and the neighbour.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The claimant (JET) and the respondent (JEU) owned adjacent terrace houses on the same road, at numbers 39 and 41 respectively, separated by a common boundary wall. The claimant had recently purchased and moved into a newly reconstructed three-storey property in 2020. The respondent’s property was single-storey. Because of the height difference, an “exposed wall” on the claimant’s property sat immediately above the boundary wall separating the two properties. Importantly, the exposed wall formed part of the claimant’s building structure.
Not long after moving in, the claimant observed water patches and dampness on the inner side of the exposed wall within her property, particularly on the inner walls of the second and third storeys adjacent to the respondent’s property. She engaged the developer who had sold her the property to rectify the problem. In January 2021, the developer carried out waterproofing works on the inner walls, but the issue recurred. By April 2021, water bubbles reappeared, and on 14 April 2021 a toilet sink on the second storey fell off during the night.
The developer advised that water seepage had corroded the grooves securing the sink to the inner walls, causing the sink to fall off. The seepage also penetrated the wooden vanity cupboard below the sink. Other signs of moisture damage followed: water marks and mould on the inner walls, paint blistering with efflorescence, cracks in the inner walls (including around power sockets), and dampness affecting timber flooring near the inner walls. The claimant’s position was that the root cause lay in water ingress through the exposed wall, not merely in the inner finishes.
To address the problem, the claimant sought permission to access the respondent’s rooftop to perform waterproofing works on the exposed wall. She attempted to approach the respondent directly and through intermediaries, including her property agent and her Member of Parliament’s constituency representatives. The respondent refused permission and would not speak with the claimant’s agent. The claimant then engaged contractors to attempt alternative measures, including chemical injections into the inner walls, but was advised that such measures would only temporarily abate seepage and that proper waterproofing required works on the exposed wall itself. Despite renewed attempts—after another sink fell off on 9 October 2021—the respondent continued to refuse rooftop access. The claimant therefore filed a claim in the CDRT on 1 November 2021, alleging that the respondent’s failure or omission to grant access caused unreasonable interference with her enjoyment or use of her place of residence.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The tribunal’s analysis was anchored in s 4 of the CDRA. Section 4(1) provides that an individual who resides in a place of residence must not, by his or her act or omission, directly or indirectly and whether intentionally, recklessly or negligently, cause unreasonable interference with his or her neighbour’s enjoyment or use of the place of residence that the neighbour resides in. The claimant bore the overall burden of proof.
Two main issues were framed for determination. First, the tribunal had to decide whether the respondent’s permission to give access to his rooftop for the claimant to perform repair and waterproofing works on the exposed wall was “necessary”. This necessity requirement was not merely about convenience; it went to whether the claimant could reasonably carry out the remedial works without the respondent’s consent.
Second, if necessity was established, the tribunal had to determine whether the respondent’s failure to grant access constituted an interference with the claimant’s enjoyment or use of her property, and if so, whether that interference was “unreasonable”. The tribunal treated these as related questions: interference had to be shown, and then the tribunal had to evaluate reasonableness in the context of the facts, including the nature of the harm and the practical impact of the refusal.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
Necessity of rooftop access
On necessity, the claimant relied on expert evidence from a building surveyor and civil engineer, Mr Lam, who had over 25 years of experience. Mr Lam testified that the inner walls were damp and that water seepage had damaged finishes, including paintwork and vanity cabinets in the toilets. His investigation involved moisture meter readings, which registered maximum readings of 999, indicating severe dampness. Based on his observations, Mr Lam concluded that rainwater seepage through crack lines in the exposed wall caused the water damage. He emphasised urgency, warning that failing to arrest water ingress could lead to consequential damage to inner walls and floor finishes in both properties, long-term corrosion to reinforced concrete elements, electrical risks (including tripping and electrocution/fire hazards as water entered electrical circuits), and safety risks such as debonding and potential falling plaster from the exposed wall.
The respondent countered with an expert report from a retired architect, Mr Low, who identified seven probable causes for the dampness. Notably, four of the seven causes concerned issues related to the exposed wall, including rainwater entering porous mortar joints in the brick wall, improper mixing of cement/sand/water leading to plastering cracks, rainwater entering through existing cracks, and rainwater entering through possible defective screw fixing and metal capping on the top of the exposed wall. The respondent’s expert thus did not entirely exclude the exposed wall as a source of the problem, but proposed multiple potential causes.
The tribunal preferred Mr Lam’s opinion. It reasoned that Mr Lam had conducted an inspection and investigation from within the claimant’s property, whereas Mr Low had not. As a result, Mr Lam’s identification of the cause was considered more accurate and persuasive than the respondent’s expert’s more theoretical and speculative explanations. The tribunal also noted that Mr Low himself confirmed the existence of crack lines on the exposed wall and identified rainwater seepage through these crack lines as a possible cause. This corroborated the claimant’s expert evidence that water ingress through the exposed wall was a plausible and likely driver of the observed dampness.
Interference and unreasonableness
Having accepted that water ingress through the exposed wall required urgent arrest, the tribunal then considered whether the respondent’s refusal to allow access amounted to interference with the claimant’s enjoyment or use of her residence. The claimant’s evidence described not only aesthetic and structural issues (dampness, mould, blistering paint, efflorescence and cracks), but also functional and safety concerns, including repeated sink failures and damage around power sockets. The tribunal’s reasoning reflected that the harm was ongoing and that the refusal prevented the claimant from implementing the remedial works that the tribunal accepted as necessary.
The tribunal also addressed the practical nature of the access sought. The claimant had withdrawn her damages claim at the pre-trial conference, narrowing the dispute to specific performance: an order requiring the respondent to grant access to the rooftop for repair and waterproofing works on the exposed wall. The tribunal recorded that the required access was for the claimant’s contractor’s workers to step on the respondent’s roof during the works. The claimant confirmed that she would not need to erect scaffolding on the respondent’s roof because access would be via rope access from her own roof. This detail mattered to the reasonableness assessment, as it suggested the intrusion would be limited and controlled, rather than open-ended or unduly burdensome.
Separating the rooftop dispute from other construction disputes
A further aspect of the tribunal’s analysis concerned context. At the pre-trial conference and hearing, it emerged that the claimant had purchased the property from the developer, Inclover Development Pte Ltd after construction completion in 2020. Since construction, the developer and the respondent had ongoing unresolved disputes concerning damage to the respondent’s roof and kitchen wall during construction. The respondent’s refusal to grant access was influenced by these unresolved disputes. The tribunal, however, cautioned against conflating the present dispute with the separate developer-related dispute. It had informed the respondent that his dispute with the developer was a separate matter from the claimant’s current claim as the owner seeking access to address ongoing water ingress affecting her property.
In other words, the tribunal treated the respondent’s refusal as an omission that had immediate consequences for the claimant’s enjoyment and use of her residence. Even if the respondent had grievances arising from construction, the tribunal did not accept that those grievances justified refusing access where the claimant had demonstrated necessity and where the refusal resulted in ongoing harm and safety risks.
What Was the Outcome?
The tribunal granted the claimant the specific relief sought. In practical terms, the respondent was ordered to permit access to his rooftop for the claimant to carry out repair and waterproofing works on the exposed wall of her property. The order was tailored to the purpose of enabling the necessary remedial works, rather than awarding damages.
The effect of the decision is that the respondent’s refusal—despite being grounded in his broader construction-related disputes—was held to constitute unreasonable interference under s 4 CDRA in the circumstances. The claimant could proceed with the waterproofing works that the tribunal found necessary to arrest water ingress and mitigate consequential damage and safety risks.
Why Does This Case Matter?
JET v JEU is significant because it illustrates how the CDRA can be used to obtain practical, property-related remedies in neighbour disputes, including where the relief sought is access to a neighbour’s property. While the CDRA is often associated with conduct-based interferences (such as noise or nuisance), this case demonstrates that “act or omission” can capture refusal to consent to necessary remedial works, especially where the refusal prevents a neighbour from addressing ongoing damage to a place of residence.
For practitioners, the decision underscores the importance of evidence on necessity and causation. The tribunal’s acceptance of necessity turned heavily on expert testimony explaining the likely source of water ingress and the urgency of arresting it. The tribunal’s preference for the claimant’s expert evidence also shows that inspection methodology and factual grounding can be decisive when experts propose competing explanations.
The case also provides guidance on reasonableness. The tribunal appeared to weigh factors such as the limited nature of the access sought, the safety and consequential risks of continued water ingress, and the relevance (or irrelevance) of unrelated disputes. Neighbours cannot assume that broader grievances will automatically justify refusal where the refusal has immediate and unreasonable effects on another resident’s enjoyment or use of their home.
Legislation Referenced
Cases Cited
- [2026] SGCDT 1 (JET v JEU) (as provided in the supplied metadata)
Source Documents
This article analyses [2026] SGCDT 1 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.