YEJ v YEK
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
YEJ v YEK [2026] SGFC 75 is a Family Court decision delivered by Magistrate Soh Kian Peng on 22 May 2026, arising from a husband's application (SSP 2569 of 2025) for a Personal Protection Order, a No-Contact Order, a Counselling Order, and a Mandatory Treatment Order against his wife. Both parties were self-represented. The wife did not attend the 16 April 2026 hearing, claiming she was receiving medical treatment in China, but Magistrate Soh found she had no reasonable excuse and proceeded under P 3 r 15 of the Family Justice (General) Rules 2024, noting that she had herself asked the court to continue in her absence.
[2026] SGFC 75 explained
YEJ v YEK ([2026] SGFC 75) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Family Court on 22 May 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 75 about?
YEJ v YEK ([2026] SGFC 75) is a Family Court decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Family Law — Family Violence — No Contact Order”, “Family Law — Family Violence — Personal Protection Order”, “Family Law — Family Violence — Mandatory Treatment Order”, and “Family Law — Family Procedure —Proceeding in the absence of the Respondent”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Summary
YEJ v YEK was a husband's application against his wife for a personal protection order, no-contact order, counselling order, and mandatory treatment order under the Women's Charter 1961, following an alleged incident on 6 December 2025 where the wife demanded to check his phone and threatened him. The trial proceeded in the wife's absence as she was in China without a valid medical certificate. The court dismissed all applications, finding the husband had not demonstrated the necessity for a PPO as he and the wife were living apart and he had cut off all contact with her.
Can a Family Court in Singapore hear a PPO application without the respondent present?
Yes. In YEJ v YEK [2026] SGFC 75, Magistrate Soh Kian Peng proceeded under P 3 r 15 of the Family Justice (General) Rules 2024 on 16 April 2026 after the wife failed to attend without reasonable excuse, having herself requested the hearing continue in her absence.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGFC 75)