JET v JEU

JET v JEU

The tribunal accepted the Claimant's expert evidence that water ingress through cracks in the exposed wall caused internal damage and that rooftop access to perform sealing and waterproofing was necessary; the Respondent's refusal to grant access was an omission that interfered with the Claimant's right to enjoy and use her residence and was unreasonable given the Catch‑22 created and the conflation with an unrelated dispute with the developer; accordingly the tribunal ordered the Respondent to grant access subject to agreed timing and liability for negligent damage.

Citation
[2026] SGCDT 1
Parties
Claimant: JET; Respondent: JEU
Court
Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
11 February 2026
Case Number
CDT/299/2021
Procedural Posture
Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal Neighbour Dispute (access to Property) / Judgment
Outcome
Claimant's application for specific performance granted in part; order made compelling rooftop access subject to conditions.
Legal Topics
Access to Property, Right to Enjoyment or Use of Place of Residence, Omission, Unreasonable Interference, Remedies Specific Performance
Source Language
English
Neighbour Disputes Property Law Tort Statutory Interpretation Access to Property Right to Enjoyment or Use of Place of Residence Omission Unreasonable Interference +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JET

Claimant

JEU

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal Neighbour Dispute (access to Property) / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent's permission for rooftop access was necessary to carry out waterproofing works on the Claimant's exposed wall
  2. 2 Whether the Respondent's failure to grant access constituted an interference with the Claimant's enjoyment or use of her place of residence
  3. 3 If an interference was established, whether that interference was unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal accepted the Claimant's expert evidence that water ingress through cracks in the exposed wall caused internal damage and that rooftop access to perform sealing and waterproofing was necessary; the Respondent's refusal to grant access was an omission that interfered with the Claimant's right to enjoy and use her residence and was unreasonable given the Catch‑22 created and the conflation with an unrelated dispute with the developer; accordingly the tribunal ordered the Respondent to grant access subject to agreed timing and liability for negligent damage.

Court Disposition

Claimant's application for specific performance granted in part; order made compelling rooftop access subject to conditions.

Orders

  • Respondent shall grant the Claimant, her agent and the agent's workers access to his property rooftop for repairs and waterproofing works to the Claimant's exposed wall.
  • Claimant shall discuss and obtain the Respondent's prior approval for the required period of access before such access commences.