Yeo Chui Seng & anor v Wang Wang Chew & 2 ors

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Ng Peng Hong
• Judgment Date: 12 November 2001
• Neutral Citation: [2001] SGDC 350
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Court: District Court (Singapore)

Judgment

GROUNDS OF DECISION

Background Facts

1. The Plaintiffs are the owners of a semi-detached house at No. 31 Jalan Leban (hereinafter referred to as "No. 31") which was purchased sometime in the 1960s. Briefly, No. 31 comprises:

(a) a main house consisting of a front bedroom, a rear bedroom, a storeroom and a living room. The fully tiled roof of the main house is equipped with a front and rear rain gutter;
(b) a car porch;
(c) an uncovered driveway;
(d) the front and rear gardens; and
(e) a kitchen extension constructed by the Plaintiffs just after they purchased the property.

2. The 1st and 2nd Defendants are the owners of the adjoining house at No. 33 Jalan Leban (hereinafter referred to as "No. 33"). The 3rd Defendants were the contractors engaged by the 1st and 2nd Defendants in 1996 to demolish the existing semi-detached building at No. 33 and erect a new detached house thereon.

3. The Plaintiffs' claim against the Defendants was based on the tort of nuisance, negligence and trespass, namely:

(a) the Defendants had wrongfully caused severe and excessive vibrations to No. 31 during the demolition works and the ensuing construction works at No. 33;
(b) the tearing down of the house at No. 33 had the effect of exposing the party wall to the weather resulting in rainwater ingress into the main house at No. 31, through the party wall and ceiling/roof joints at the living/dining room, master bedroom and kitchen during rainfall;
(c) the Defendants had raised the ground level of No. 33 which caused rainwater to seep into the main house of No. 31 and by using the Plaintiffs' party wall as support for the sub-soil from the said raised ground thereby causing further trespass onto the Plaintiffs' land;
(d) the Defendants had erected 2 sections of wall (front and rear). The front part had water seeped into the Plaintiffs' uncovered driveway. The rear wall was said to be structurally unstable and/or unsound, thereby putting the Plaintiffs and the members of their family in constant fear for their safety;
(e) the Defendants had caused and wrongfully permitted debris from their works to fall onto No. 31 from time to time;
(f) the Defendants were negligent (see paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Re-re-amended Statement of Claim);
(g) the Defendants had wrongfully constructed 2 sections of wall which trespassed onto No. 31;
(h) the Defendants drilled and inserted metal insertions into the base of Plaintiffs' party wall.

4. Consequently, the Plaintiffs suffered loss and damages, in particular,

(a) cracks in various parts of the Plaintiffs' house;
(b) a gaping hole in the roof and ceiling of the master bedroom;
(c) efflorescing, dampness staining, bubbling, flaking and spalling wall plasterwork along the internal wall;
(d) rotting furniture cabinets alongside the party wall;
(e) stained marble flooring extending to about 2 feet along the party wall.

5. The Plaintiffs seek the following against the Defendants:

(a) an injunction to restrain the 1st and 2nd Defendants by their servants or agents or otherwise from permitting water of any kind from seeping through the party wall into No. 31 and/or overflowing onto No. 31 from No. 33;

(b) an order that the 1st and 2nd Defendants do forthwith take immediate steps to arrest and prevent further seepages of water of any kind from No. 33 into No. 31 through the party wall;

(c) an order that the 1st and 2nd Defendants do forthwith take immediate steps to arrest and prevent further overflow of water of any kind from No. 33 onto No. 31;

(d) damages in respect of repairs to be occasioned to No. 31 estimated at $82,000.00 and incidental costs;

(e) an order that the 1st and 2nd Defendants do forthwith pull down and remove the 2 sections of wall pleaded in paragraph 14 of the Re-re-amended Statement of Claim;

(f) an order that the 1st and 2nd Defendants do construct a retaining wall on their land along the stretch of the kitchen extension;

(g) an order that the 1st and 2nd Defendants do remove the insertions from the Plaintiffs' party wall and make good all the damages done to the said wall;

(h) damages for trespass;

(i) damages in respect of the various survey fees totaling $14,565.00.

ISSUES

6. The issues are:

(a) whether the Plaintiffs have proved on a balance of probabilities that

(i) the Defendants have committed the nuisance, negligence and trespass alleged by the Plaintiffs
(ii) that the alleged damage claimed by the Plaintiffs were caused by the alleged nuisance, negligence and trespass.
(iii) the quantum of damages to be awarded to the Plaintiffs.

Defendants' Case

7. The Defendants denied the aforesaid allegations against them. In particular, the Defendants averred that:

(a) no heavy equipment or machinery had been used in the demolition and erection works. That workers had to carry out the demolition works manually using saws and breakers and no piling works or excavators were used. Vibrations as such would be minimal;
(b) the alleged damages to the Plaintiffs' Premises were not caused by the Defendants. The Defendants were therefore not liable for the damages claimed by the Plaintiffs as set out in paragraphs 5(d) and 5(i) above. In my view, it is clear that the Defendants owed the Plaintiffs a duty of care to ensure that the Works did not cause damage to the Plaintiffs property. I found that the Defendants failed in their duty of care owed to the Plaintiffs, which caused damage to the Plaintiffs property. Details of the Defendants breaches of duty are particularised under paragraph 11 of the Re-Re-Amended Statement of Claim (BP 73 - 76).

Trespass

8. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants had trespassed onto No. 31 in the following four aspects:

(a) by constructing a glass block wall, bordering the driveways of the two properties, which had encroached onto No. 31 (hereinafter referred to as the "Front Glass Block Wall"). In this regard, the Plaintiffs further alleged that the Glass Block Wall was structurally unsafe, unstable and unsound (see paragraph 6(b) and 14 of the Re-re-amended Statement of Claim);
(b) by constructing a glass block wall, bordering the rear gardens of the two properties, which had encroached onto No. 31 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rear Glass Block Wall"). The Plaintiffs further averred that the Rear Glass Block Wall was structurally unsafe, unstable and unsound (see paragraph 6(b) and 14 of the Re-re-amended Statement of Claim);
(c) by raising the ground level of No. 33 by up to 4 feet and thereby causing further trespass on No. 31 by using the wall of the Plaintiffs' kitchen extension as support for the soil from the raised ground on No. 33 (see paragraph 16 of the Re-re-amended Statement of Claim);
(d) by drilling and inserting into the party wall from No. 33, metal insertions at regular intervals along the base of the said wall.

9. As regard the alleged trespass in respect of the two glass block walls, the Plaintiff had previously taken out an application for mandatory injunctions against the Defendants in Summons-in-Chambers No. 300411/99. On 22 March 1999, the Plaintiffs applied for and obtained an adjournment sine die of the hearing of the said Summons-In-Chambers with liberty to restore. Since then, the Plaintiffs did not apply for leave to restore the said Summons-In-Chambers. It was the Defendants' contention that without the said leave to restore, the Plaintiffs are estopped from proceedings further. With due respect, this submission is without merit and must be rejected. I see no reason why the Plaintiffs are precluded from raising these issues as they have been pleaded in their pleadings.

Front Glass Block Wall

10. Next, the Defendants submitted that as regard the Front Glass Block Wall, the Plaintiffs' allegations are without merit and unsubstantiated as the Plaintiffs' Land Surveyor, Mr Lim Anthony, PW5, (hereinafter referred to as "Anthony") has confirmed during cross-examination that the Front Glass Block Wall did not encroach onto No. 31 at all. Anthony also testified that his conclusion on this point, as reflected in PBA 79 and 80, is consistent with the conclusion of Mr Lee Li Chuan in DBA 94 which also showed that the Front Glass Block Wall did not encroach onto No. 31 at all.

11. I accept Anthony's evidence that as regard the front boundary wall there is no encroachment onto the Plaintiffs' land. If at all, the encroachment is only by 0.03 sq m (0.32 sq ft ) and should be regarded as de minimis. See Fima Construction Pte Ltd v Neo Brothers Pte Ltd [1991] 1 SLR 425 where the court applied the de minimis principle where the area encroached amounted to 3 sq ft. But I agree that the Defendants must remove the corrugated galvanised zinc sheets and timber strips and seal up the weeping holes at the front boundary wall. To do these the Plaintiffs must allow the Defendants to enter into their premises to carry out the said works during working hours after due notice given. Accordingly, I so order. Alternatively, I fix a sum of $1,000.00 for the Plaintiffs to do so in view of the strained relationship of the parties.

Rear...