Now ill start our content by explaining the laws related to liability of contractors

towards owner of neighbouring land.

According to law of Tort ,in specific nuisance and negligence, contractors have duty
of care to avoid causing mental, physical and financial damages to the owner of
neighbouring land.
Next, Party wall ACT 1996 provide a framework for preventing or resolving disputes
in relation to party walls, party structures, boundary walls and excavations near
neighbouring buildings.
Lastly, 44(1)b of the National Land Code 1965 states that a landowner has a
common-law obligation not to interfere with the support structure of his neighbour's
land.
Now ill explain about the related cases for this situation. First case is WISMA
PUNCA EMAS SDN BHD V DR DONAL RO’HOLOHON- 1987.

In this case the appellant and respondent were registered owners of adjoining
landed properties in Seremban. As a result of development works carried out on the
appellant's land, the respondent took out a writ against them claiming inter alia,
damages and also prayed for an injunction. The case against the appellant was
summed up in the statement of claim as follows: "The indiscriminate excavation and
removal of earth, stone and clay from the defendants' property without ensuring
sufficient support for the adjoining properties and without taking sufficient
precautions and providing adequate support or otherwise caused the surrounding
areas to be lowered thereby causing the said premises (of the plaintiff) to sink and its
walls to move from its original position and the premises has been damaged."
The learned trial judge found the appellant liable for actionable nuisance and gave
judgment for the respondent.

Next case is, Andreae v Selfridge and Co. Ltd-[1938]

In this case, The plaintiff occupied land from which she operated a hotel. The
defendant owned the surrounding land and carried out extensive demolition work on
this land for rebuilding purposes. The plaintiff sued the defendant for nuisance
arising out of the dust and noise and claimed that she had lost significant customers
as a result. The Court of Appeal considered that, since building operations cannot be
carried out without a certain amount of noise and dust, neighbours have to put up
with a certain amount of discomfort. If building works were reasonably carried on and
all proper and reasonable steps were taken to ensure that no undue inconvenience
was caused to neighbours, they would not be entitled to complain. However, the
defendant had caused noise at unreasonable hours and the quantity of dust and grit
was described by the court as insufferable. The duty was to take proper precautions,
to take reasonable skill and care and to see that the nuisance was reduced to a
minimum. This could include restricting the hours of work, the amount of a particular
type of work done at any one time and using proper technical methods to avoid
inconvenience. At the end of the case, the plaintiff succeeded.