Man who sued neighbour for battery, assault and harassment loses suit, must pay S$10,000 in costs

District Judge Chiah Kok Khun said the legal burden of proof lay with the claimant, Mr Mah.

In this case, he had no independent evidence of the alleged assault and battery, no witnesses, no photos of any injury and no medical evidence of any injury sustained.

Mr Mah also failed to prove that his neighbour had harassed him.

“As with his claim for assault and battery, I have nothing more than the claimant’s words. They are mere assertions without evidence,” said the judge.

THE NEIGHBOUR’S ACCOUNT

In contrast, the neighbour gave a different account of what happened. He said he had no dealings with Mr Mah and had not spoken to him before the July 2024 incident.

That day, the neighbour said he was returning to his flat after taking his dog to the ground floor to relieve itself.

He was holding the leash with one hand while exiting the lift when he saw Mr Mah at the door of his flat.

The neighbour said he heard Mr Mah shouting vulgarities at his father, who used a walker, and challenging him to a fight.

The neighbour said that when he asked Mr Mah why he was shouting, Mr Mah responded aggressively and used vulgarities.

They exchanged heated words and Mr Mah left his slippers behind when he went home.

The neighbour recalled sliding the slippers back towards Mr Mah’s flat. However, he said he did not charge at Mr Mah nor grab him, nor did he adopt any attacking posture.

He added that he was much stronger and bigger than Mr Mah, and the latter would have suffered injuries had he really attacked him.

According to the neighbour, the police arrived on the scene but he declined initially to file a police report. It was only after Mr Mah shouted that “this is not the end of it” that the neighbour said he lodged a police report as he was concerned Mr Mah would harm his dog.

The judge noted that Mr Mah had filed a private summons against his neighbour for the July 2024 incident, but the Attorney-General’s Chambers intervened and withdrew the complaint against the neighbour.

As for the March 2025 incident, the neighbour said he was looking after a stray cat that had been left in front of his flat.

He said he was contacting the National Parks Board (NParks) to hand the cat over for treatment of its open wound and apparent malnourishment.

While he was on the phone with NParks, the cat went past Mr Mah’s flat.

The neighbour said he was following the cat when Mr Mah came out of his flat and shouted at him while filming.

The neighbour explained that he was helping a stray cat, and said Mr Mah raised his voice and used abusive language.

The neighbour produced a CCTV recording showing that he was holding a bowl of food for the stray cat, as well as a mobile phone call log displaying his call with NParks.

Regarding the final incident in May 2025, the neighbour said Mr Mah was stomping his feet loudly when leaving and returning to his unit, waking the neighbour’s mother and causing her distress.

The neighbour wanted to speak to Mr Mah to resolve matters and went to his flat, but could not find him.

He then returned to his flat. This was captured on CCTV footage, which showed the neighbour walking towards and then back from Mr Mah’s flat without any gestures, confrontations or vulgarities.

The neighbour also produced footage of Mr Mah shouting in front of his flat.

The judge found that Mr Mah had failed to prove on a balance of probabilities his claims of assault, battery and harassment and dismissed the claim.

He fixed costs at S$10,000 to be paid by Mr Mah to his neighbour.