Geonoise Asia Archives - Geonoise Asia Co., Ltd.

Noise between neighbours is no longer just an annoyance in dense cities like Singapore. Under modern legislation, persistent residential noise can become a legal problem that ends with court orders, fines and even a criminal record.

In 2025, a Singapore resident was found guilty in court for repeatedly breaching an order to stop disturbing a neighbour with shouting, banging and other disruptive behaviour. The order originated from the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRT), which handle neighbour disputes such as excessive noise, smells and smoke in high-density housing. When the resident ignored the order, the case escalated into a criminal prosecution for non-compliance.

For condominium managers, landlords and acoustic consultants across Southeast Asia, this is a clear reminder that neighbour noise is not just a social issue – it can become a matter of enforcement and liability.

Neighbour noise in Singapore’s high-density housing

Singapore has a large share of its population living in high-rise public housing and condominiums. Everyday sounds easily travel through walls, floors and corridors. Most of the time, residents resolve conflicts informally, but when noise is frequent, late at night, or clearly unreasonable, it can qualify as a dispute under the Community Disputes Resolution Act.

The Act allows neighbours to file claims when another resident’s behaviour unreasonably interferes with the enjoyment of their home. One of the specified grounds is “causing excessive noise” on a regular basis. Before going to court, parties are encouraged to try mediation, but if that fails, the tribunal can issue orders that look very similar to small-court judgments.

The 2025 enforcement case: when a civil order is not enough

From complaints to tribunal order

In the 2025 case, the dispute started like many others: one resident complained that the neighbour below repeatedly shouted, banged on surfaces and created disturbing noise that made life upstairs intolerable. After attempts at informal resolution failed, the affected resident filed a claim in the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal.

The tribunal examined the evidence and issued an order requiring the noisy neighbour to stop the disturbing conduct. The order effectively functioned as an injunction: do not shout, bang or otherwise disturb the neighbour in ways described in the decision. At this stage, the matter was still handled as a civil-type dispute between neighbours.

Escalation to criminal prosecution

The problem was that the noise did not stop. Despite the tribunal’s order, the disruptive behaviour continued on multiple occasions. Each breach of the order was recorded and reported. Because the Community Disputes Resolution Act allows tribunal orders to be enforced through the State Courts, the case was escalated.

The prosecutor brought charges for wilfully disobeying a lawful order. The court found that the neighbour had knowingly continued the disturbing conduct even after being clearly informed of the obligations in the order. As a result, the resident was found guilty. Sentencing was to follow, but the key point was made: ignoring a noise order can lead to a criminal conviction, not just a warning.

How Singapore’s Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals work

The Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals are specialised bodies that deal with low-value but high-impact neighbourhood disputes. Examples include:

Excessive or persistent noise from shouting, music, dragging furniture or slamming doors.
Smells, smoke and litter that interfere with neighbours.
Blocking of common areas and shared facilities.

Typical steps in a noise dispute are:

Pre-filing and mediation: parties are encouraged to try mediation or community-based resolution first.
Filing the claim: the affected neighbour files a claim describing the behaviour, impact and requested remedies.
Hearing and order: the tribunal hears both sides and can issue orders to stop the behaviour, pay modest damages or take corrective steps.
Enforcement: if the order is ignored, the matter can be brought to the State Courts, and non-compliance can lead to fines or other penalties.

For noise cases, the tribunal looks at patterns: how often the noise occurs, at what times, how loud it is relative to normal living sounds, and how it affects sleep or daily life. Written logs, audio or video recordings and testimony from other neighbours can all be important.

Lessons for residential noise disputes in Southeast Asia

1. Persistent noise can become a legal risk, not just a complaint

The Singapore case shows that when a neighbour continues noisy behaviour after a formal order, the issue can move from “civil dispute” to “criminal non-compliance”. This significantly raises the stakes for residents who treat regulations lightly.

In other Southeast Asian cities with dense housing, similar frameworks may exist or emerge. Local governments and housing authorities increasingly recognise that unmanaged neighbour noise undermines mental health, productivity and community cohesion.

2. Evidence and documentation are decisive

Tribunals and courts decide cases based on evidence, not just statements like “my neighbour is noisy”. For an affected resident or a building manager trying to help, practical steps include:

Keeping a detailed noise log with dates, times and descriptions of incidents.
Collecting corroboration from other neighbours where possible.
Obtaining audio or video recordings where lawful and appropriate.
Recording any attempts at mediation or discussion with the neighbour.

The stronger the evidence, the easier it is for a tribunal to conclude that the behaviour is unreasonable and persistent.

3. Property managers need clear internal protocols

Condominium and apartment managers are often the first point of contact for noise complaints. The Singapore experience suggests that managers should:

Have a clear written procedure for handling noise complaints and recording them.
Provide guidance to residents on acceptable noise levels and quiet hours.
Encourage early, cooperative solutions but also be ready to support residents if a case must go to an external tribunal or court.

A structured approach reduces frustration, ensures fairness and produces better documentation if formal proceedings become necessary.

How Geonoise Asia can support neighbour noise cases

Although neighbour noise disputes are typically small-scale compared to industrial or infrastructure projects, the underlying principles are the same: clear standards, good measurements and credible reporting.

Geonoise Asia can assist building managers, lawyers and authorities by:

Advising on practical internal noise policies and guidelines for residential buildings.
Designing simple measurement campaigns to document typical and worst-case sound levels in disputed units or corridors.
Preparing clear, neutral reports that explain how measured levels compare with recommended indoor noise criteria and building codes.
Providing expert input in more complex or high-profile cases where technical evidence will be scrutinised closely.

As legal frameworks across Southeast Asia become more structured around community disputes and environmental noise, having reliable acoustic data and a clear story behind it will be increasingly important. The Singapore neighbour noise enforcement case is an early signal of how seriously courts are prepared to treat persistent residential noise. Geonoise Asia is ready to help stakeholders stay ahead of that curve.

In 2024, the Supreme Administrative Court of Thailand issued decision A.58/2567 in a dispute between a tofu factory and local authorities. The case looks simple on the surface – neighbours complained about night-time noise from factory operations – but the judgment sends a strong message to regulators and operators across Southeast Asia: noise nuisance orders must be backed by defensible technical evidence, not just assumptions or feelings.

For Geonoise Asia, this is exactly the type of case where independent acoustic expertise, correct measurements and robust documentation make the difference between a legally sustainable order and one that will be struck down on appeal.

Case background: complaints about tofu factory noise

Residents in an urban neighbourhood complained that a tofu factory was operating at night using machinery and activities that allegedly generated disturbing noise – from production equipment and cleaning to handling water, moving carts and talking. Local officials treated the factory as a potential “health-hazardous business” under Thailand’s Public Health Act B.E. 2535 (1992) and opened an investigation.

Health officers attempted to take sound measurements at the complainant’s house. The resident did not allow instruments to be placed inside the dwelling, so the team installed a meter outside the house for three days. During that period, the tofu production did not run at night and no decisive evidence of excessive noise was captured. Authorities therefore had no measured data showing that noise levels breached any statutory limit.

Despite this, the district director – acting as the local public health authority – issued a formal nuisance abatement order under Section 28 of the Public Health Act. The order instructed the factory owner to “correct and improve” operations and to avoid any actions that would cause noise disturbance at night.

The factory appealed to the Minister of Public Health but received no effective response, and ultimately brought the matter before the Administrative Court, asking for the abatement order to be revoked. The first-instance Administrative Court dismissed the claim and upheld the order, so the operator appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court.

What the Supreme Administrative Court decided

At the heart of the case was a very practical question: can a nuisance order be based on assumptions that noise is “likely” to exceed legal limits, without any compliant measurement?

The Court examined the relevant Thai technical standards, in particular:

The National Environmental Board (NEB) notification on environmental noise limits, which treats noise as a nuisance when the level exceeds background noise by more than 10 dB(A).
The Department of Health notification on nuisance criteria for noise, which aligns with the same 10 dB(A) concept and requires methodical measurement.

The Court noted that the district office had never actually measured and calculated whether the factory’s noise exceeded background by more than 10 dB(A) during real operating conditions. The only documented conclusion was that if night-time production took place, it “might” disturb nearby residents. There was no quantitative proof, no properly documented measurement session at the relevant times, and no calculation showing a breach of the 10 dB(A) threshold.

On that basis, the Supreme Administrative Court held that:

A local authority may have power to issue nuisance abatement orders, but that power must be exercised on the basis of reliable technical evidence, not only on subjective impressions or speculative assessments.
Because no compliant sound measurements were carried out, the authority had not demonstrated that the legal criteria for “noise nuisance” were met.
The abatement order was therefore unlawful and had to be revoked.

In simple terms: even if neighbours sincerely feel disturbed, the law requires that a noise nuisance be proven using accepted measurement methods and thresholds; “it probably exceeds the standard” is not enough.

Key legal and technical principles from this case

Scientific evidence is mandatory. For noise nuisance, authorities must rely on correctly executed sound measurements – including equipment, locations, time periods and reference standards – not purely on complaints or officers’ subjective impressions.
The 10 dB(A) rule matters. In Thailand, environmental and public health regulations treat noise as a nuisance when it exceeds background noise by more than 10 dB(A). Without that differential being established, enforcement is on shaky ground.
Procedural errors can invalidate orders. If an authority issues a closure or abatement order without going through the legally required measurement and documentation steps, affected operators can challenge the order in court and obtain its cancellation.
Courts expect professional practice. Environmental and neighbour-noise cases must be built on strong factual and technical foundations, not assumptions.

Implications for regulators, operators and communities in Southeast Asia

For regulators and local authorities

Do not issue noise nuisance orders without a traceable measurement campaign aligned with your national standards.
Document sound level meter type, calibration, locations, measurement periods, background levels and calculations.
Consider partnering with independent acoustic consultants where internal expertise or equipment is limited.

For factories, venues and hospitality operators

Proactively commission baseline noise surveys around your facility, especially for night-time operations.
Maintain a measurement record to show regulators and courts that your operations comply with limits, or that you have a mitigation plan in place.
If you receive a nuisance order, check whether it is supported by proper measurements; if not, you may have legal arguments based on this precedent.

For residents and communities

Complaints are still important – they trigger investigations – but attaching recordings and indicative sound level readings will increase their weight.
Court cases are more likely to succeed when community testimony is supported by objective measurements from recognised methods and instruments.

How Geonoise Asia can support as expert witness and technical partner

This case is a textbook example of why independent acoustics expertise is critical in noise disputes:

Authorities need coherent, standards-based measurements to sustain their orders.
Operators need robust counter-evidence to challenge orders that are not properly substantiated.

Geonoise Asia can support public and private stakeholders throughout Southeast Asia by:

Designing and executing noise measurement campaigns that follow national and international standards.
Preparing clear, court-ready reports that explain methodology, uncertainty and compliance in language judges and lawyers can work with.
Acting as independent expert witnesses in administrative and civil proceedings where noise levels, nuisance and mitigation measures are in dispute.
Helping regulators and municipalities build internal procedures for defensible measurements and documentation.

For local authorities, that reduces litigation risk and increases public trust. For operators, it ensures that your side of the story is backed by credible data. For communities, it means noise complaints are treated seriously and resolved on the basis of facts, not just emotion.

Checklist: building a defensible noise nuisance case

Whether you are a regulator, operator or community representative in any Southeast Asian country, this Thai judgment suggests a simple checklist:

Define the relevant legal standard (for example, 10 dB(A) above background, night-time limits, zoning rules).
Plan the measurement (locations, time windows, instrumentation, calibration, background measurements).
Record and store raw data and logs – not just summary numbers.
Analyse and report with traceability so that another expert can independently review your findings.
Engage independent acoustics experts early when you expect the dispute may escalate to court.

Geonoise Asia is ready to support stakeholders across Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Singapore and the wider region who need evidence-based, defensible solutions to noise nuisance disputes – from early complaint investigations all the way to expert testimony in court.