YCF v YCG

YCF v YCG

The applicant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the respondent committed family violence or caused demonstrable serious mental harm; CCTV and testimonial evidence showed only brief, non-threatening conduct and contextual incidents were infrequent and insufficient to establish a pattern or necessity for protection, therefore the PPO and consequent SAO were not necessary and the application is dismissed.

Citation
[2026] SGFC 59
Parties
Applicant (ex Wife): YCF; Respondent (ex Husband): YCG
Court
Family Court
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
28 April 2026
Case Number
SSP 2379/2025
Procedural Posture
Personal Protection Order Application Under the Women’s Charter 1961 / Trial and Dismissal (judgment)
Outcome
Applicant's application for a PPO dismissed; application for SAO dismissed
Legal Topics
Personal Protection Order, Stay Away Order, Emotional or Psychological Abuse, Necessity of Protection Orders, Evidence and Corroboration
Source Language
English
Family Law Domestic Violence Child Access Personal Protection Order Stay Away Order Emotional or Psychological Abuse Necessity of Protection Orders Evidence and Corroboration

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

YCF

Applicant (ex Wife)

YCG

Respondent (ex Husband)

Procedural Posture

Personal Protection Order Application Under the Women’s Charter 1961 / Trial and Dismissal (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent committed family violence under section 60A of the Women’s Charter
  2. 2 Whether the respondent’s conduct on 26 November 2025 amounted to emotional or psychological abuse under section 58B(4)
  3. 3 Whether a PPO and SAO were necessary for protection of applicant and children

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the respondent committed family violence or caused demonstrable serious mental harm; CCTV and testimonial evidence showed only brief, non-threatening conduct and contextual incidents were infrequent and insufficient to establish a pattern or necessity for protection, therefore the PPO and consequent SAO were not necessary and the application is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Applicant's application for a PPO dismissed; application for SAO dismissed

Orders

  • Applicant's application for a personal protection order dismissed
  • Applicant's application for a stay away order dismissed