YCN and YCP v YCO
Key facts
| Court | Family Court |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Soh Kian Peng |
| Charges / claim | Family Law |
| Counsel | Y F Tab & Co, Tan Yew Fai |
Source: [2026] SGFC 63, Family Court, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (2)
Parties (3)
Case Significance
YCN and YCP v YCO [2026] SGFC 63, decided on 4 May 2026 by Magistrate Soh Kian Peng in the Family Court, concerned two consolidated personal protection order (PPO) applications (SS 748 and SS 751 of 2024) arising from an incident on 17 April 2024 at Changi General Hospital, where the parties' elderly mother had been hospitalised in the intensive care unit following a heart attack and was scheduled for a heart operation that day. The case turned on whether family violence within the meaning of s 64 of the Women's Charter 1961 had been committed or was likely to be committed, and whether PPOs were necessary for the applicants' protection. Tan Yew Fai of Y F Tab & Co acted for the respondent YCO.
[2026] SGFC 63 explained
YCN and YCP v YCO ([2026] SGFC 63) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Family Court on 4 May 2026. It is categorised under Family Law. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 1 other reported Singapore judgment, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.
What is [2026] SGFC 63 about?
YCN and YCP v YCO ([2026] SGFC 63) is a Family Court decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Family Law — Personal Protection Order”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2026] SGFC 63 consider?
The judgment refers to Evidence Act (Cap 97). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
How influential is [2026] SGFC 63?
Within this corpus, [2026] SGFC 63 has been cited by 1 later reported Singapore judgment. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.
Summary
Two applicants — a sister-in-law and a sister — sought personal protection orders against a third woman arising out of an alleged slapping incident on 17 April 2024 at Changi General Hospital, where all parties had gathered as their elderly mother underwent heart surgery. After a multi-day trial, the court dismissed both applications, finding the applicants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that family violence had been committed or was likely to be committed, and ordered the applicants to pay costs of $16,000 and $22,000 respectively to the respondent.
What triggered the personal protection order applications in YCN and YCP v YCO [2026] SGFC 63?
The PPO applications arose from an incident on 17 April 2024 at Changi General Hospital, where the parties were gathered because their elderly mother was in the ICU following a heart attack and was scheduled for heart surgery that day. Magistrate Soh Kian Peng decided the consolidated applications on 4 May 2026.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (1)
Cited By (1)
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Legal concepts & references
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGFC 63)