YGV v YGW
Outcome
Application dismissed“The application was therefore dismissed.”
Source: [2026] SGFC 112, Family Court, decided 13 August 2026. Read directly from the judgment.
Featured in the weekly digest — week of 10–16 August 2026 →
Key facts
| Court | Family Court |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Marcus Ho |
| Charges / claim | Family Law |
| Outcome | Application dismissed |
| Counsel | Mark Cheng Law Corporation, Ramdas & Wong, Chan Yuen Ling, Mark Cheng Wei Chin |
Source: [2026] SGFC 112, Family Court, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (4)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
YGV v YGW [2026] SGFC 112 was decided by District Judge Marcus Ho in the Family Court on 13 August 2026, with the decision delivered on 24 June 2026. The applicant, aged 74, applied on 19 January 2026 under s 60A(1) of the Women's Charter 1961 for a personal protection order against his son, citing six incidents between December 2023 and December 2025. The issues were whether family violence had been committed, including whether attempts to admit a family member into the Institute of Mental Health or a nursing home amounted to it, and whether an order was necessary. The court found family violence on two occasions but held an order unnecessary, dismissed the application and ordered costs of $3,000 (all-in).
[2026] SGFC 112 explained
YGV v YGW ([2026] SGFC 112) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Family Court on 13 August 2026. It is categorised under Family Law. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. 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 112 about?
YGV v YGW ([2026] SGFC 112) is a Family Court decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Family Law – Family violence – Orders for protection”, “Family Law – Family violence – Emotional or psychological abuse”, “Family Law – Family violence – Physical abuse – Wrongful restraint”, and “Family Law – Family violence – Whether attempts to admit a family member into the Institute of Mental Health or a nursing home amount to family violence”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGFC 112 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2026] SGFC 49 and [2026] SGFC 31. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
Summary
The Family Court dismissed an application by a 74-year-old man for a personal protection order against his son. The applicant said the respondent had committed physical and emotional or psychological abuse through six incidents between December 2023 and December 2025, including attempts to admit him into the Institute of Mental Health or a nursing home. The court found that physical restraint on 21 March 2024 and the arrangement of an ambulance on 19 December 2025 amounted to family violence, but held that a protection order was not necessary. Costs of $3,000 were ordered against the applicant.
What was YGV v YGW [2026] SGFC 112 about?
An application by a 74-year-old man for a personal protection order against his son, alleging physical and emotional abuse including attempts to admit him into the Institute of Mental Health or a nursing home. The Family Court dismissed the application.
Why was the personal protection order refused in [2026] SGFC 112?
The court found two incidents amounted to family violence but held an order was not necessary, as repeat physical abuse and repeat calls for an ambulance without good reason were unlikely, and the harm caused was of low gravity.
Cases Cited (3)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGFC 112)