Landslides next door. Who is responsible?

When falling trees, soil movement or water from neighbouring land threaten a condominium, the management corporation may need to act quickly to protect residents.

But can it build a protective wall across the boundary? And if damage has already occurred, what must it prove before the neighbouring landowner can be made to pay?

These questions arose in Mesti Kembang Development Sdn Bhd v Perbadanan Pengurusan Danau Permai [2026] CLJU 2987. The High Court dismissed both the landowner’s claim and the management corporation’s counterclaim.

What happened?

Mesti Kembang owned land situated above the Danau Permai development. It became the registered owner in May 2020. The land already contained trees and vegetation, and the company had not carried out activities there since becoming the registered owner.

The management corporation (MC) complained of landslides, soil erosion and falling trees. It alleged that conditions on the neighbouring land had caused damage to its perimeter wall, fencing and parking area, and endangered residents.

The MC built a protective retaining structure extending onto the neighbouring land.

Mesti Kembang alleged that the MC had trespassed. It also sought declarations that it had not committed trespass or nuisance against the MC. The MC counterclaimed, alleging that Mesti Kembang had negligently failed to maintain and stabilise its slope.

Could the MC build on neighbouring land?

The court accepted that entering another person’s land without permission amounted to trespass. A concern about safety did not automatically remove the landowner’s rights.

However, the court accepted the MC’s justification on the particular facts. The structure was intended to prevent soil from collapsing onto the development and causing greater damage. It was confined to the boundary area and did not extend further into the neighbouring land than was necessary for its construction.

The landowner’s claim was therefore dismissed.

The court expressly cautioned against treating this as a general rule permitting neighbours to enter each other’s land without consent. The justification depended on the evidence and the limited extent of the works.

Why did the MC’s compensation claim fail?

Successfully defending the protective works did not establish that Mesti Kembang was legally responsible for the damage.

The landowner produced technical evidence that its land was stable and that the conditions on its land had not caused the alleged soil movement and water flow. Its witnesses also raised concerns about the construction of the MC’s wall.

The MC did not produce evidence sufficient to rebut that technical account. Its own witness accepted that the incidents occurred during heavy rain and strong winds.

The court acknowledged that damaging incidents had occurred, including incidents shown in video evidence. The missing element was proof that the landowner’s negligence caused the loss.

The fact that the neighbouring land was higher than the condominium was not enough. Nor did proof of damage, by itself, establish who was legally responsible.

The MC’s counterclaim was dismissed. By agreement, each party bore its own costs.

What should management bodies take note of?

Ask the expert to explain the cause, not merely record the damage.

A report showing a collapsed wall or fallen tree may establish what happened. A compensation claim also needs evidence explaining why it happened and how the neighbouring owner’s conduct contributed to it. The investigation should address possible causes such as drainage, slope conditions, tree stability and the construction of the affected structure.

Document the danger from neighbouring land before carrying out protective works.

Preserve photographs, videos, incident reports and technical recommendations. Record why the proposed work is needed, its location and the area it will occupy. Where immediate safety measures are necessary, keep a clear record of the urgency and the measures taken.

Check the boundary before instructing a contractor.

A wall built to protect the condominium may still encroach onto someone else’s land. Establish the boundary and seek written agreement for access and works where practicable. If consent is refused, obtain advice on the available legal measures. This decision should not be treated as permission to build across a boundary whenever management considers it useful.

Do not assume that defeating a claim means recovering repair costs.

The MC had to answer two separate questions: whether its protective works were justified, and whether the neighbouring landowner had caused compensable damage. It succeeded on the first but failed on the second. Management bodies should assess the evidence supporting their own claim separately from the evidence supporting their defence.

Share this article