fc_judgments: 88

Data source: lawnet.sg/lawnet/web/lawnet/free-resources

This data as json

_id	_item_id	tags	date	court	case-number	title	citation	url	counsel	timestamp	coram	html	_commit
88	8b59d13481b96e8323ce5d4b42de0b0c5aa08318	[ "Family Law \u2013 Personal Protection Order \u2013 s 65, Women\u2019s Charter \u2013 Wrongful Restraint" ]	2024-10-04	Family Court	Summons No 762 of 2024	XBN v XBM	[2024] SGFC 69	https://www.lawnet.sg:443/lawnet/web/lawnet/free-resources?p_p_id=freeresources_WAR_lawnet3baseportlet&p_p_lifecycle=1&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&_freeresources_WAR_lawnet3baseportlet_action=openContentPage&_freeresources_WAR_lawnet3baseportlet_docId=%2FJudgment%2F32272-SSP.xml	[ "The Complainant in person", "The Respondent in person" ]	2024-10-10T16:00:00Z[GMT]	Suzanne Chin	<root><head><title>XBN v XBM</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> XBN <em>v</em> XBM </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/32272-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 69</a></span></h2><table id="info-table"><tbody><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Case Number</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body">Summons No 762 of 2024</td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Decision Date</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body">04 October 2024</td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Tribunal/Court</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body">Family Court</td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Coram</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body"> Suzanne Chin </td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Counsel Name(s)</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body"> The Complainant in person; The Respondent in person </td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Parties</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body"> XBN — XBM </td></tr></tbody></table> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Family Law</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Personal Protection Order</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">s 65, Women’s Charter</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Wrongful Restraint</span></p> <p></p><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="80%"><p class="Judg-Hearing-Date">4 October 2024</p></td><td><p class="Judg-Date-Reserved"></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p> <p class="Judg-Author"> District Judge Suzanne Chin:</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Introduction</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_1"></a>1 The matter came for hearing before me in respect of cross applications for personal protection orders (”PPOs”). The ex-wife (“Wife”) had applied for a PPO to restrain the ex-husband (“Husband”) from committing family violence against her while the Husband filed an application for a PPO to restrain the Wife from committing family violence against him.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2 After hearing from parties on their applications for PPOs against each other, I granted PPOs in both applications i.e. a PPO in favour of the Husband in SS 640/2022 to restrain the Wife from committing family violence against him as well as a PPO in favour of the Wife in SS 762/2024 to restrain the Husband from committing family violence against her.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3 The Husband has filed an appeal against my decision in SS 762/2024, the Wife’s application for a PPO against him and I set forth below the reasons for my decision. I would also mention that with regard to the Husband’s application for a PPO against the Wife in SS640/2022, during the trial, the Wife had admitted to committing family violence against the Husband on the relevant day and after considering the facts and circumstances, I granted a PPO in favour of the Husband against the Wife as I considered that it was necessary for his protection in the circumstances.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Background </p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4 Parties married on the 4 April 2012 and divorce was granted on the 5 January 2021. The parties have 2 daughters who, at the time of the conclusion of the Ancillary Matters were 11 and 9.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5 On 11 April 2022, Ancillary Orders were made by the court granting sole care and control of the 2 children to the Wife, with access to the Husband. It was as a result of the older daughter (the “Child”) not returning to the Wife’s residence after one of the access sessions that the series of events that eventually led to the cross PPO applications occurred.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">The Law</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6 Under section 65(1) of the Women’s Charter (Cap 353), a PPO may be issued if the court finds on a balance of probabilities that (a) family violence has been committed or is likely to be committed against a family member; and (b) it is necessary for the protection of that family member.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7 Section 64 defines “family violence” to mean the commission of any of the following acts:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_7-p2_a"></a>(a) wilfully or knowingly placing, or attempting to place, a family member in fear of hurt;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_7-p2_b"></a>(b) causing hurt to a family member by such act which is known or ought to have been known would result in hurt;</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_7-p2_c"></a>(c) wrongfully confining or restraining a family member against his will; or</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_7-p2_d"></a>(d) causing continual harassment with intent to cause or knowing that it is likely to cause anguish to a family member.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id=""></a>The section proceeds to carve out the exception of self-defence by qualifying as follows:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">“but does not include any force lawfully used in self-defence..”</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8 While in the usual case, the first limb of s 65(1) is fulfilled by family violence having been determined to have been committed, it is important to note that a PPO may also be made pre-emptively, where family violence is “likely to be committed” and even if family violence has not in fact been committed.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_9"></a>9 It should also be noted that the onus rests on the party bringing the application to show on a balance of probabilities that family violence had been committed and that it is necessary for their protection that a PPO be granted.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Incidents of alleged violence</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_10"></a>10 Both PPO applications were based on a single incident which took place on the 7 January 2024 and I set forth below the account of each party.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">The Husband’s account of the incident on 7 January 2024</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_11"></a>11 On the 7 January 2024 at around 10pm, the Wife arrived at the Husband’s home with 2 police officers as the elder daughter of the marriage (“the Child”) had not returned from access. According to the Husband, the Wife insisted that the court orders should be complied with and since she had been granted sole care and control of the Child, she wanted the Child to return to her home after the access session. The Husband recounted that the Child refused to return home with the Wife. All of this transpired while the Husband and the daughter were inside his house and the Wife and the 2 policemen were standing outside with a metal gate separating them. The Husband eventually opened the gate on the bidding of the policemen and also the daughter who wanted the gate to be opened. The parties and the Child appear to have continued their discussions and eventually the policemen left.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_12"></a>12 The Husband recounted that shortly thereafter, the Wife started pulling the daughter out of the house by holding onto the child’s body. The Husband explained that at that juncture, he grabbed the Wife’s forearm to prevent the Wife from forcing the Child to leave with her and the Wife reacted by kicking, punching and scratching him. In the meantime, the Child had been released from the grip of the Wife and stood outside the gate. The Wife then told the Child to run to the lift. The Husband recounted that that he held onto the Wife’s right hand and tried to push her out of the house with the intention of trying to stop the Wife from hitting him and also from leaving with the daughter. He maintained that he had used “some strength” but after the Wife started hitting and punching him, he reacted by holding harder onto her hand to stop her. <span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_1" id="Ftn_1_1"><sup>[note: 1]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_13"></a>13 By that stage, according to the Husband, the child had run to the lift and at the same time, his mother who was at home at the time surfaced and witnessed the commotion. The child then signalled to her grandmother to call the police, The Wife then told the child to run and the child then went into the lift and left the scene by taking the lift to the ground level. Thereafter the Husband still holding onto the Wife took the lift down with the Wife. He contended that the Wife had been continuously hitting him. As they arrived at the ground floor and stepped out of the lift, they found that police officers had arrived at the scene, and it was at that point in time that he let go of the Wife.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_14"></a>14 The Husband maintained that he had not committed Family Violence against the Wife as he had acted in self-defence and had grabbed her purely for the purpose of preventing her from leaving with the daughter against the child’s will and from preventing her from hitting and punching him.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">The Wife’s account of the incident on 7 January 2024</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_15"></a>15 The Wife recounted that on 7 January 2024 at around 10pm as the daughter had not come home from access with her father, she had gone to the police station and requested that the police accompany her to the Husband’s residence to help her seek the return of the Child. When she arrived at the Husband’s residence with the police, she spoke to the Child who told her that she would go back with her only if the Wife did not pursue the maintenance enforcement application she had made against the Husband. As they continued the conversation, according to the Wife, the Child then started to say that she wanted to go back with her. Shortly thereafter, the metal gate was opened and as the daughter had agreed to go home with her, the daughter put on her shoes and stepped through the entrance of the Husband’s residence into the corridor outside of the house. At that point in time, the Husband grabbed the Child’s hand and started to pull her. The Wife explained that to stop him from pulling the Child back in, she hugged onto the Child and pulled at her. At the same time, she stepped on the Husband’s feet and pressed down hard in the hope that he would let go of the Child’s hand. The Child managed to break free and the Wife then told her to quickly run to the lift to take the lift down. At that point in time, the Wife maintained that she tried to block the Husband and he then grabbed her upper arms forcefully to try to stop her. She then kicked him on the stomach area in a bid to get him to release her. The parties continued in their positions until the Husband’s father came out to try to stop them but the Husband flung off his father’s hand. When the lift door opened, both of them entered the lift and took the lift to the ground floor where they found the police with the Child.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_16"></a>16 The Wife did not deny that she had caused the Husband “hurt” and admitted that she had inflicted family violence on him. She maintained that by the same token, the Husband had also caused her hurt by grabbing onto her upper arms and in this regard she provided photographs of bruises as well as a referral letter written by the medical clinic she had attended on the 8 January 2024.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Witnesses</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_17"></a>17 In addition to his account of the incident, the Husband had called his parents as witnesses to provide their version of the incident. The Husband had at the trial indicated to the court that he had intended to call the daughter as a witness in support of his case but just before the trial, the daughter had been warded into hospital as a result of a mental breakdown and remained in hospital for observation. In light of this he could not call his daughter to appear as a witness for the trial.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_18"></a>18 In contrast, the Wife did not call any witnesses.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Whether Family Violence had been committed by the Husband on the Wife</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_19"></a>19 Based on the Husband’s own account, he contended that he had not hit the Wife back but had merely held onto her to restrain her so that she could not force the child to go back home with her. He was also contending that he had restrained her also to stop her from hitting him and accordingly he had not committed any family violence on the Wife but had acted in self-defence. The Wife’s case was that the Husband had caused her hurt by such act which is known or ought to have been known would result in hurt and this was evidenced by the bruise she had suffered on upper arms. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, I also thought it relevant to consider if the Husband had inflicted family violence on the Wife by “wrongfully confining or restraining [her] against ..her will”. Accordingly, the questions to be considered are as follows:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_19-p2_a"></a>(a) Whether the Husband had wrongfully confined or restrained the Wife against her will; and</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_19-p2_b"></a>(b) Whether the Husband had caused hurt to the Wife by such act which is known or ought to have been known would result in hurt.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id=""></a>Upon consideration of the accounts provided by each of the parties as well as the account provided by the Husband’s witnesses, I noted that the Child had clearly been conflicted on the day. I accepted that the Child had spoken to the Wife about dropping the maintenance enforcement claim she had filed against the Husband and appears to have indicated to the Wife that this was a precondition to her returning home. This was not challenged by the Husband but he also explained that the Child had only been willing to return home provided she was allowed to live with both of her parents. Regardless of the actual reason, it was clear that the Child was in two minds about returning to the Wife’s residence but was also not averse to this. The fact that the Child had in the circumstances and after the long discussions put on her shoes suggests that the discussions with both parents had reached the point where the Child was ready to return with the Wife. This conclusion is also supported by the fact that both parties agreed that it was the Wife who had asked the Child to run to take the lift down to the ground level which the Child appeared to have responded to. If indeed the Wife had physically removed the Child against her will from the Husband’s residence as the Husband recounts, it would have been unlikely that the Child would have responded to the Wife’s instructions to run.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_20"></a>20 The Husband indicated that he had restrained the Wife by holding her by her forearm on that day with a view to pushing her out of the house as she had tried to take the child with her. I did not find that his account made sense and found that the Wife’s account of events appeared to be more consistent and logical. Based on the sequence of events, it would appear that the Child had already agreed to leave with the Wife and had put on her shoes when the scuffle began and it would have been more likely that the Husband had held onto the child’s hand in a bid to prevent her from leaving with the Wife. In response, the Wife had grabbed onto the child who was literally caught in between the 2 parents during the tussle and at the same time started stamping onto the Husband’s foot to get him to release the child. The Wife’s efforts must have paid off as it appears that shortly thereafter, the child was out of the grip of both parents and ran towards the lift. The parties then started focussing on each other with each trying to prevent the other from running to the child. It was not disputed that at this point, the Husband held onto the Wife to prevent her from leaving with the child and in response the Wife started hitting and kicking the Husband in an attempt to get him to release her.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_21"></a>21 I considered the Husband’s contention that as the Wife had continued to hit and kick him, he had no alternative but to restrain her in self -defence. In the case of TEK v TEJ <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/17829-SSP.xml')">[2015] SGFC 89</a>, the court referred to the Court of Appeal case of Tan Chor Jin v PP [2008] 4 SLR 206 where the concept of private defence was referred to as follows:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">“…The right of private defence is available only to one who is suddenly confronted with the necessity of averting an impending danger not of self-creation. That being so, the necessary corollary is that the violence which the citizen defending himself or his property is entitled to use must not be unduly disproportionate to the injury which is sought to be averted or which is reasonably apprehended and should not exceed its legitimate purpose….”</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_22"></a>22 Based on his own account of events, it was the Husband’s position that he had grabbed onto the Wife’s forearms to restrain her from taking the Child with her. According to him, as the Wife grabbed the Child in an effort to pull the Child out of the house, he had grabbed the Wife’s hand to “prevent her from…physical contact…to stop her from pulling my daughter.”<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_2" id="Ftn_2_1"><sup>[note: 2]</sup></a></span> It was clear that the initial act of restraint by the Husband was not an act of self-defence but was an act of restraint with an intention of restraining the Wife from leaving with the Child. Subsequently as the Wife tried to break free, she started kicking and punching the Husband:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1"> <sup></sup>“…. I used some strength… I tried to push her away without holding at first. Then subsequently…. the mother…. after pulling out my daughter, then reacted, ….by kicking and punching me repeatedly… Then I reacted.. by holding…..harder on her hand while to… to try to stop her from hitting me…”<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_3" id="Ftn_3_1"><sup>[note: 3]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id=""></a>While the subsequent reaction of the Husband by grabbing onto the Wife even “harder” could be described as a reaction to her hitting and kicking him and can be argued to have been in self- defence, the initial act of restraining the Wife at the outset cannot be considered to be self-defence and in fact, it was apparent that the Wife’s act of “kicking and punching” the Husband was a reaction to the Husband’s restraint as she was trying to break free. I do not think this was a situation where the Husband had found himself “suddenly confronted with the necessity of averting an impending danger not of self-creation”. The Husband’s act of restraining the Wife led to the Wife’s reaction of kicking and punching him and was clearly a situation created by the Husband himself. Accordingly, I was of the view that the Husband had not acted in self-defence on that occasion. It should also be noted that the restraint by the Husband continued even after the child had left the scene and was no where close to either party.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_23"></a>23 In view of this, I concluded that the Husband had wrongfully confined or restrained the Wife against her will.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_24"></a>24 With regard to the bruises suffered by the Wife, which were not challenged by the Husband, it was clear to me that they were as a result of the force used by the Husband in restraining the Wife and I was of the view that the Husband had also caused hurt to the Wife by such act which is known or ought to have been known would result in hurt.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_25"></a>25 Accordingly, based on the above, I determined that on the balance of probabilities, the Wife had proven that Family Violence had been inflicted on her by the Husband during the incident on 7 January 2024. I would add, that while I had reached the conclusion that family violence had in fact been committed by the Husband on the Wife based on the evidence before me, taking into account the continued and heightened acrimony between the parties, their behaviour towards each other during the trial and the fact that there would be ongoing child access arrangements which likely might lead to further disputes between the parties, I determined further that family violence “is likely to be committed” going forward.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Whether it is necessary for a PPO to be granted for the protection of the Wife</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_26"></a>26 As the incident in question arose out of the current access arrangements and bearing in mind that there will be continued access by the Husband to both daughters, the likelihood of another similar dispute and incident ensuing is high. In light of this, I determined that it was necessary for a PPO to be granted against the Husband for the protection of the Wife.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Conclusion</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_27"></a>27 Having considered all of the evidence and submissions before me, I granted the Wife’s application for a PPO against the Husband. It is worth noting that I had also granted the Husband’s application for a PPO for his protection. I had also made counselling guidance orders which required both parties to attend counselling in the hope that this will provide to both of them some insight into their current situation and help them understand the requisite boundaries which should not be crossed.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_28"></a>28 In this case, I would also add that the Child has been severely impacted on by the divorce and the continued acrimony between her parents. On the day of the incident, upon the parties’ arrival at the ground floor, they had found the daughter who had taken the lift down earlier, with the police. In his statement, the Husband provided the following account in his police report of the incident:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1"> <sup></sup>“… causing my daughter to break down and wanted to end her life by trying to snatch police gun. My daughter is subsequently suppressed with assistance from the 2 police officers. Subsequently, my daughter was escorted to IMH by police for mental check-up due to her act of suicide/self-harm…”<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_4" id="Ftn_4_1"><sup>[note: 4]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_29"></a>29 It is indeed a very sad and dire state of affairs and I reiterate that during the trial, I was informed by parties that the Child had been warded into hospital in the days before the trial as she had suffered a nervous breakdown. In the circumstances, I would strongly urge the parties to consider taking a step back from the fighting and warring and instead focussing on the bigger picture of the needs of their children, particularly the Child, as well as the future of their children. At the end of the day, family disputes are a zero sum game - there are no winners or losers in family disputes and but the biggest losers are often the children.</p> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_1_1" id="Ftn_1">[note: 1]</a></sup>Note 1: Transcript for SS640/2024 and SS762/2024 at page 7 of 61, lines 2 to 19.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_2_1" id="Ftn_2">[note: 2]</a></sup>Note 2: Transcript for SS640/2024 and SS 762/2024 at page 10 of 61, lines 13 and 14.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_3_1" id="Ftn_3">[note: 3]</a></sup>Note 3: Transcript for SS640/2024 and SS 762/2024 at page 7 of 61, lines 4 to 12.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_4_1" id="Ftn_4">[note: 4]</a></sup>Note 4: Police Report No A/2024xxx/70xx filed by the Husband on 27 March 2024.</p></div></content></root>	1816

Links from other tables

1 row from _item in fc_judgments_version