YCN and YCP v YCO

Facts

Three family members were involved: [A], who is the sister-in-law of [C], and [B], who is [C]'s sister. On 17 April 2024 all three were at Changi General Hospital, where the elderly mother of [B] and [C] was in intensive care and due for heart surgery. [A] alleged that [C] came up to her in the hospital cafeteria and slapped her on the left cheek, leaving a cut on her chin. [C] said she was trying to get news of their mother, was startled when [A] shouted at her, lost her balance and, reaching out to steady herself, touched [A] lightly and momentarily.

In the following days [A] applied for a Personal Protection Order (PPO) against [C] in SS 748/2024, and [B] did the same in SS 751/2024. [B] also relied on an incident outside the courtroom and on an alleged threat to kill her in 1999. Both applications were heard together over several days of trial in the Family Court; [A] and [B] acted in person, and [C] had counsel.

Issues

1. Whether [A] proved that [C] had slapped her or was likely to commit family violence on her.
2. Whether [B] proved that [C] had committed or was likely to commit family violence on her.
3. Whether a PPO was necessary for the protection of either applicant.
4. What costs order should follow.

Holding

The Family Court dismissed both PPO applications and ordered costs against the applicants: [A] to pay $16,000 and [B] to pay $22,000 to [C] by 16 July 2025.

Reasoning

On [A]'s application, neither [B] nor [A]'s husband saw a slap; both said they were looking at their phones. Their evidence and a video of [A] shouting at [C] showed only how [A] reacted, which was equally consistent with [C]'s account given [A]'s evident dislike of [C]. The medical report recorded a small abrasion and ticked a box that it fitted [A]'s account, but gave no reasons, and the court is not bound to accept a doctor's conclusion it cannot test. A message about $50,000 in legal costs was aimed at settling the matter and was not family violence. There was no evidence of a grudge or of other incidents, and the 1999 allegation was too old to be supported.

On [B]'s application, she did not see any slap, and being present at a dispute between others was not violence against her. The video did not show [C] advancing aggressively. By [B]'s own account, [C] did nothing outside the courtroom but look at her phone. The court found it was [B] who appeared to hold a grievance, linked to a soured joint investment.

In any event, no PPO was necessary for either applicant: the parties live apart and meet only occasionally at family or social events, usually with others present, so the risk was low.

Costs followed the event. The court took into account a trial of some 10 calendar days and the applicants' disruptive conduct, including interruptions, accusations against counsel and outbursts that forced adjournments. [B] paid more because she pressed the courtroom incident.

From the judgment