Woman in dispute with neighbour fined S$2,500 after breaching direction to move tables and adjust CCTV

Between January and May 2026, Ajiramah removed the tables and adjusted the CCTV camera so that it no longer faced the neighbour’s doorway.

The prosecution did not take action against Ajiramah’s husband, although the judgment did not state why.

The prosecution sought a fine of S$1,000 while the defence, represented by lawyer Sean Marican, argued for a S$400 fine.

Mr Marican said his client was illiterate and had difficulty understanding the tribunal’s orders as her native language was Malay. He also said the couple was unemployed and that a high fine would “crush her finances”.

ENFORCEMENT APPROACH

The CDRT was established in 2015 to hear disputes between neighbours after attempts to resolve them through mediation have been exhausted.

Judge Ho said that the CDRA provides a “two-strike approach” to enforcement.

A first breach allows the tribunal to issue a special direction requiring compliance, while breaching that direction constitutes a criminal offence.

He said deterrence was the dominant sentencing consideration in this case.

“At its heart, the breach of special direction offence is rooted in a person’s repeated disobedience of the CDRT’s order and direction,” the judge said.

“Such an offence, if left unaddressed, could undermine the efficacy of the CDRA regime, and potentially even the broader administration of justice.

“It would be a costly mistake for anyone to assume that CDRT orders can be disregarded, or even disrespected, with impunity simply because of the CDRT’s status as a tribunal.”

COURT’S DECISION

Judge Ho rejected the defence’s argument that Ajiramah had difficulty understanding the tribunal’s orders, noting that there was no evidence that she had attempted to comply or sought clarification on what she was required to do.

Even after being charged in October 2025, she only began taking remedial steps from January 2026 onwards and did not fully comply until May 2026, he noted.

The judge also rejected submissions that her financial circumstances and age should substantially reduce her sentence, saying there was no objective evidence of financial hardship and that advanced age is generally not a mitigating factor unless a custodial sentence would effectively amount to a life term.

Judge Ho found that an “appropriately calibrated fine” was sufficient, as Ajiramah eventually complied and there was no evidence of substantial harm to the neighbour.

However, he said the prosecution’s proposed S$1,000 fine was inadequate and that the penalty had to be “sufficiently high to provide for a deterrent effect” commensurate with her culpability.

He imposed a S$2,500 fine. If Ajiramah fails to pay, she will have to serve 10 days’ jail.

The court allowed her to pay the fine in five monthly instalments.

For breaching a special direction, Ajiramah could have been fined up to S$5,000, jailed for up to three months, or both.