XZU v XZV

XZU v XZV

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the respondent’s conduct did not constitute emotional or psychological abuse causing demonstrable harm beyond ordinary unhappiness and that a PPO was not necessary given the one‑off nature of the incidents, the respondent’s longstanding caregiving relationship with C, absence of objective evidence of harm and low risk of future violence; accordingly the PPO application was dismissed.

Citation
[2026] SGFC 31
Parties
Applicant (daughter in Law): XZU; Respondent (father in Law): XZV
Court
Family Court
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
11 March 2026
Case Number
SSP 2336/2025
Procedural Posture
Personal Protection Order (family Violence) / Final Decision on Application (ssp 2336/2025)
Outcome
Application dismissed; personal protection order refused
Legal Topics
Personal Protection Order, Family Violence, Emotional and Psychological Abuse, Necessity Requirement, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Family Law Domestic Violence Child Protection Personal Protection Order Family Violence Emotional and Psychological Abuse Necessity Requirement Burden of Proof

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XZU

Applicant (daughter in Law)

XZV

Respondent (father in Law)

Procedural Posture

Personal Protection Order (family Violence) / Final Decision on Application (ssp 2336/2025)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent committed or is likely to commit family violence against the child C
  2. 2 Whether it is necessary to issue a personal protection order for the protection or personal safety of C

Ratio Decidendi

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the respondent’s conduct did not constitute emotional or psychological abuse causing demonstrable harm beyond ordinary unhappiness and that a PPO was not necessary given the one‑off nature of the incidents, the respondent’s longstanding caregiving relationship with C, absence of objective evidence of harm and low risk of future violence; accordingly the PPO application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; personal protection order refused

Orders

  • Applicant to pay costs to the Respondent