Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Singapore decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Family Court dismissed a wife’s applications for a domestic exclusion order and to revoke a reciprocal PPO, finding no proven safety need or changed circumstances.
The Family Court dismissed a husband’s PPO application, finding no demonstrated necessity for protection or future risk. Related NCO, CGO, and MTO requests also failed.
Family Court granted a PPO after finding physical abuse and emotional or psychological abuse under the Women’s Charter. It adopted a contextualised objective test for s 58B(4)(a).
The applicant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the respondent committed actionable family violence of the emotional or psychological kind or that a protection order was necessary: many allegations lacked sufficient particulars or contemporaneous evidence, key incidents were unproven or isolated and remote in time, incidents occurring after the complaint date could not form the cause of action, and the alleged social‑media friend requests and reputation‑tarnishing did not meet the statutory threshold of egregious controlling behaviour under s58B of the Women’s Charter.
Source excerpt
Family Court considered cross-applications for protection orders over parental conflict, rejected the mother's PPO claims, and granted a PPO for the father.
The Family Court granted XXH a personal protection order and dismissed XXG’s cross-application, holding that only the 30 November 2024 incident was proved.
The Family Court dismissed six cross-applications for personal protection orders in a family dispute, and clarified how family violence and PPO necessity are assessed under the Women’s Charter.
The Family Court granted a husband’s PPO application against his wife, finding excessive corporal punishment, threats to kill the children, and continual harassment.
Interlocutory injunction granted excluding the defendant from the property, with limited access, pending transfer or further order. Stay refused.
The High Court held that an MTO suitability report should have been called for and replaced a 12-week sentence with a 24-month Mandatory Treatment Order.
Explore more
