1. Neighbouring renovation works without prior approval; stop-work order and penalty imposed; adjoining property owners sued neighbours. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2026 MarsdenLR 2247
HIGH COURT MALAYA JOHOR BAHRU
NORADURA HAMZAH, JC
LEE WEI SHOOI & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
ENG CHAI SENG & ORS; TAN CHENG NGAP (THIRD PARTY) – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: JA-22NCvC-184-12/2024]
Petitioner Advocates:Dinesh Kanavaja ,Respondent Advocate: George Neo Hee Kwang,Christie Liau Hui Min
Headnote:(A) Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 - Sections 70(1) and 95(2) - Evidence Act 1950 - Sections 101 to 103 and 114(g) - Building works commenced without prior approval - Whether such contravention of public regulation confers a private cause of action on a neighbor - A contravention of public regulation does not, of itself, confer upon a neighbor a private cause of action; to succeed, the neighbor must establish a recognized tort and prove damage. (Para 26-27)
(B) Private Nuisance - Noise and dust from construction - Works of finite duration ordinarily occasion some inconvenience and the law does not treat every such inconvenience as an actionable nuisance. (Para 30)
(C) Tort - Burden of proof - Where physical damage to property is alleged, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish such damage on the balance of probabilities, typically requiring expert structural evidence and valuation of loss. (Paras 31, 38-39)
(D) Local Authority - Immunity from liability - Statutory immunity is conferred on local authorities and their officers in respect of acts done in good faith in the execution of duties, including the approval of plans and conduct of inspections. (Para 47)
Facts of the case:
Owners of adjoining link houses entered into a dispute following renovation and extension works carried out on one property. The works commenced without the prior approval of the local authority, leading to a stop-work order and a penalty. The neighbors alleged that the works caused excessive noise, dust, and structural damage to their property, and claimed trespass. The plaintiffs refused access to their property for a required dilapidation report. A suit was brought against the homeowners, their architect, and the local authority.
Findings of Court:
The plaintiffs failed to prove that the works caused an actionable private nuisance, trespass, or physical damage to their property. The noise and dust did not cross the threshold of actionable nuisance, and there was no expert evidence to establish structural damage. The architect owed no duty of care to the neighbors, and the local authority was protected by statutory immunity and owed no duty of care to the plaintiffs.
Issues: Whether the building works contravened the relevant law and caused an actionable wrong (private nuisance, trespass, or negligence) making the defendants liable, and whether the architect or local authority bore any liability or acted in conspiracy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the breach of a public regulatory requirement for building approval does not automatically create a private right of action for a neighbor; the plaintiff must independently prove a tort and resulting damage. Without expert structural evidence, allegations of instability and cracking remain mere opinion and are insufficient to establish liability in nuisance or negligence. Furthermore, local authorities are immune from liability for acts performed in good faith under the relevant building act.
Result: Plaintiffs' claim against all defendants dismissed; third-party claim dismissed; interlocutory injunction discharged; global costs awarded to the defendants and the third party.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- tort
- land and property
- practice and procedure
-
administrative law
- judicial review (Para 27)
Table of Contents
2. Plaintiffs argued works were unlawful and caused harm. Defendants denied liability, pointing to contractor and regulatory compliance. (Para 8 , 24 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 40 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 46 , 48 , 49 )
3. Plaintiffs failed to prove actionable nuisance, trespass, or physical damage. Evidence of noise/dust insufficient. No structural damage proved. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 )
4. Mere regulatory contravention of building laws does not confer a private cause of action on a neighbour without proof of recognised tort and damage. (Para 26 , 27 , 41 )
5. Plaintiffs' claim dismissed. Injunction discharged. Third-party claim dismissed. Costs awarded to defendants and third party. (Para 54 )
6. Does a failure to obtain prior building approval automatically give a neighbour a private cause of action?
No. A regulatory contravention of building laws does not of itself confer a private cause of action; a recognised tort and damage must still be proved. (Para 26 , 27 )
7. What must a plaintiff prove to succeed in a private nuisance claim for neighbouring construction works?
The plaintiff must prove an unlawful interference with use or enjoyment of land, including noise/dust crossing a threshold, or physical damage, by evidence. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 )
8. Can a plaintiff rely on an architect's evidence to prove structural damage from earthworks?
No, unless the architect is a structural engineer or gives expert evidence on causation of structural damage; evidence of plan compliance is insufficient. (Para 34 , 35 )
9. Is a local authority liable in negligence for approving plans or failing to intervene in construction works?
No. A local authority owes no duty of care to neighbours; statutory immunity applies under the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974. (Para 46 , 47 )
10. Is an architect liable to a neighbour for failing to ensure compliance with approved plans?
No, if the architect was not the client of the neighbour and owed no duty of care; duty arises only at completion and certification stage. (Para 44 , 45 )
JUDGMENT
A. Introduction
[1] Good fences, it is said, make good neighbours. This case is about what followed when one came down. The Plaintiffs and the 1st and 2nd Defendants live in adjoining link houses in the same row in Taman Redang, Johor Bahru. When the 1st and 2nd Defendants began renovating and extending their home, the Plaintiffs next door complained that the works were noisy, dusty and damaging and that parts of the structure should never have been built. What began as a quarrel over a building site grew into a suit against the neighbours, the architect and the city council, with the neighbours pointing to their contractor. The question for me is narrow:
"Have the Plaintiffs proved that the works were unlawful and caused them an actionable wrong as to make any of the Defendants liable".
Background
[2] The 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs are the registered joint proprietors of the property known as No 21, Jalan Redang 1/2A, Taman Redang, Johor Bahru ("the Plaintiffs' property"). The 1st and 2nd Defendants are the registered joint proprietors of the immediately adjoining property known as No 23 which is "the Defendants' property". The 2nd Defendant is the 1st Defendant's daughter and authorised him to conduct the defence.
[3] The 1st and 2nd Defendants engaged the Third Party to carry out the renovation works on a turnkey basis that included the obtaining of any approvals required from the 4th Defendant. The 1st Defendant paid RM5,000.00 towards the preparation of the plans. The works, which included earthworks and excavation, commenced in or about October 2023.
[4] It is not in dispute that, when the works commenced, the prior approval of the 4th Defendant had not been obtained. On 25 June 2024, following a complaint, the 4th Defendant inspected the site, and on 26 June 2024 it issued a stop-work order under s 70(1) of the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 [Act 133], together with a direction to demolish the structures exceeding the permitted boundary. A penalty of RM3,230.00 for building without prior approval was imposed and paid on 17 July 2024 and the revised plans were approved, subject to conditions, on 28 July 2024.
[5] The 4th Defendant thereafter required a dilapidation report before any resumption of works. The 1st and 2nd Defendants appointed Sinct-Lab Sdn Bhd, whose report was completed on or about 25 November 2024. The report inspected the neighbouring properties but not the Plaintiffs' property, the Plaintiffs having declined access.
[6] On 14 April 2025 the 4th Defendant issued a letter of no objection to the resumption of works upon a fresh submission. The Plaintiffs thereafter obtained an interlocutory injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd Defendants from continuing the works on 28 October 2025 (Enclosure 71).
[7] The Plaintiffs resided in their property throughout. These matters are largely reflected in the parties' agreed statements of fact and were not seriously contested at trial.
Issues
[8] Enclosure 75 set out twelve issues to be tried: six for the Plaintiffs, three for the 1st and 2nd Defendants and three as between the 1st and 2nd Defendants and the Third Party. Many of them overlap or are subsidiary to one another and the determinative questions, as I summarised them, are five:
(a) Whether the works contravened the relevant law and, if so, with what consequence;
(b) Whether the 1st and 2nd Defendants (and, as the case may be, the 3rd Defendant) are liable to the Plaintiffs in private nuisance, trespass and/or negligence and whether the Plaintiffs have proved damage caused by the works;
(c) Whether the 3rd Defendant and the 4th Defendant bear any liability and whether the alleged conspiracy is made out;
(d) What relief, if any, the Plaintiffs are entitled to, including the quantum of any damages; and
(e) Whether the 1st and 2nd Defendants are entitled to contribution and/or an indemnity from the Third Party.
Analysis
Preliminary Matters: Objections And The Documents
[9] At the trial, the parties a
