YAW v YAX

Facts

The applicant filed applications for Personal Protection Orders (PPOs) against her mother, her father and her sister, the last being SSP 1899/2025. They were heard together in the Family Court with the sister's own PPO application against the applicant. At the material time all four lived in the same family home; the applicant left after the July 2025 incident, returning briefly in August 2025 to collect her things.

The applications centred on two incidents. In May 2025 the applicant, upset that a container of coffee powder she kept as fertiliser had been knocked over, went to confront her sister, who locked herself in her room. The applicant used a hammer on the door knob until the bolt gave way, and after a quarrel she reached past their mother and punched her sister in the face. A scuffle followed and both parents restrained her. On 30 July 2025 the applicant alleged that her sister made a profane remark from the staircase and then hit her on the head with a blender as she approached; the sister said she let go of the items she was holding to defend herself and the blender struck the applicant as it fell. The applicant pulled her sister down the stairs, and the family again restrained her. The court dismissed all of the applicant's applications and granted the sister's; the applicant appealed only the decision on SSP 1899/2025 (HCF/DCA 7/2026), and these are the grounds.

Issues

1. Whether the sister or parents committed family violence against the applicant within section 58B of the Women's Charter 1961
2. Whether a protection order was necessary for the applicant's protection or personal safety under section 60A
3. Whether a protection order should be granted on the sister's application against the applicant

Holding

The Family Court dismissed the applicant's PPO applications against her mother, father and sister, including SSP 1899/2025, and granted the sister's application, ordering a PPO restraining the applicant from family violence against her sister for one year, with mandatory counselling for the parties.

Reasoning

The court explained that the current definition of family violence is broad and covers physical, sexual, emotional and psychological abuse, but that a PPO remains a preventive and not a punitive measure, so necessity must still be shown, having regard to the severity and frequency of the violence, the nature of the dispute and whether the parties remain in contact.

On the May incident, the court found that the sister scuffled briefly only after being hit, and that the medical evidence showed no sign of punching or kicking; the arm and wrist injuries fitted the restraint applied by the family, especially the father. On the July incident, it found that the applicant acted aggressively by rushing up the stairs without speaking, that the sister released the blender in a quick decision to defend herself, and that the lack of marks on the applicant's head did not fit her account of being smashed with it. The family's restraint did amount to physical violence.

Even so, no PPO was necessary for the applicant. She was the aggressor on both occasions, her family had only responded to restrain her, she had moved out, and any contact at the grandparents' home appeared unlikely and could be managed. By contrast, the applicant's conduct showed she was likely to antagonise her sister, who tended to avoid conflict, and the court could not be sure she would not return home, so the sister's PPO was granted.

From the judgment