YAW v YAX

YAW v YAX

The Applicant was the primary aggressor in the incidents of 20 May 2025 and 30 July 2025; the physical contact by the Sister, Mother and Father was in response and chiefly restraining in nature; the Applicant had moved out and there was no sufficient likelihood of future family violence or necessity to justify PPOs against the family members, but the Sister’s cross-application warranted a one-year PPO against the Applicant because the Applicant’s conduct showed a real risk of antagonizing the Sister in future.

Citation
[2026] SGFC 46
Parties
Applicant: YAW; Respondent: YAX; Family Member / Cross Applicant: Sister; Family Member: Mother; Family Member: Father
Court
Family Court
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
13 April 2026
Case Number
HCF/DCA 7/2026
Procedural Posture
Personal Protection Order Applications Under the Women’s Charter 1961 / Grounds of Decision (district Court); Appeal Filed in Respect of SSP 1899/2025
Outcome
Applications by the Applicant for PPOs against her Mother, Father and Sister dismissed; cross-application by the Sister against the Applicant granted
Legal Topics
Personal Protection Order, Definition of Family Violence (s.58 B), Necessity Test for Ppos, Use of Force in Restraint/defence, Medical Evidence in Assault Allegations
Source Language
English
Family Law Domestic Violence Protective Orders Personal Protection Order Definition of Family Violence (s.58 B) Necessity Test for Ppos Use of Force in Restraint/defence Medical Evidence in Assault Allegations

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

YAW

Applicant

YAX

Respondent

Sister

Family Member / Cross Applicant

Mother

Family Member

Father

Family Member

Procedural Posture

Personal Protection Order Applications Under the Women’s Charter 1961 / Grounds of Decision (district Court); Appeal Filed in Respect of SSP 1899/2025

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the alleged incidents of 20 May 2025 and 30 July 2025 constitute family violence under s.58B of the Women’s Charter
  2. 2 Whether a protection order is necessary for the personal safety of the Applicant on the balance of probabilities (s.60A)
  3. 3 Whether the Applicant or the family members were the primary aggressor

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant was the primary aggressor in the incidents of 20 May 2025 and 30 July 2025; the physical contact by the Sister, Mother and Father was in response and chiefly restraining in nature; the Applicant had moved out and there was no sufficient likelihood of future family violence or necessity to justify PPOs against the family members, but the Sister’s cross-application warranted a one-year PPO against the Applicant because the Applicant’s conduct showed a real risk of antagonizing the Sister in future.

Court Disposition

Applications by the Applicant for PPOs against her Mother, Father and Sister dismissed; cross-application by the Sister against the Applicant granted

Orders

  • Dismissed: Applicant's applications for PPOs against Mother (SSP xxx of 2025), Father (SSP xxx of 2025) and Sister (SSP 1899 of 2025)
  • Granted: Sister's application (SSP xxx of 2025) — Personal Protection Order restraining the Applicant from inflicting family violence against the Sister for one year