JEY v JEZ

JEY v JEZ

The claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the respondent caused the alleged excessive noise because the audio recordings did not establish source or proximity, and similar noises were heard when the respondent was absent; therefore the claim under s4 CDRA is not made out and must be dismissed.

Citation
[2026] SGCDT 2
Parties
Claimant: JEY; Defendant: JEZ
Court
Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
6 March 2026
Case Number
CDT/187/2025
Procedural Posture
Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal (cdrt) Claim No. 187 of 2025 / Grounds of Decision / Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Excessive Noise, Injunction, Apology, Community Disputes Resolution Act 2015, Unreasonable Interference
Source Language
English
Tort Statutory Duty Neighbourhood Disputes Excessive Noise Injunction Apology Community Disputes Resolution Act 2015 Unreasonable Interference

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JEY

Claimant

JEZ

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal (cdrt) Claim No. 187 of 2025 / Grounds of Decision / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent caused unreasonable interference by excessive noise
  2. 2 Whether the claimant proved the claim on a balance of probabilities
  3. 3 Whether it is just and equitable to make orders under section 5(1) CDRA

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the respondent caused the alleged excessive noise because the audio recordings did not establish source or proximity, and similar noises were heard when the respondent was absent; therefore the claim under s4 CDRA is not made out and must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed
  • No order as to costs