fc_judgments: 94
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 94 | fc7e4ddbfcf4dc54c7f204d0cbf48e095650438c | [
"Family Law \u2013 Family violence \u2013 Orders for protection",
"Family Law \u2013 Family violence \u2013 Continual harassment"
] |
2024-10-24 | Family Court | Summons No 1061 of 2024 | XEN v XEO | [2024] SGFC 94 | 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%2F32386-SSP.xml | [
"Both parties in person."
] |
2024-11-01T16:00:00Z[GMT] | Tan Zhi Xiang | <root><head><title>XEN v XEO</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> XEN <em>v</em> XEO </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/32386-SSP.xml')">[2024] SGFC 94</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 1061 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">24 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"> Tan Zhi Xiang </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"> Both parties 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"> XEN — XEO </td></tr></tbody></table> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Family Law</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Family violence</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Orders for protection</span></p> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Family Law</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Family violence</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Continual harassment</span></p> <p></p><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="80%"><p class="Judg-Hearing-Date">24 October 2024</p></td><td><p class="Judg-Date-Reserved"></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p> <p class="Judg-Author"> District Judge Tan Zhi Xiang:</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Introduction</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_1"></a>1 This was an application for a personal protection order (“PPO”) and a partial domestic exclusion order (“DEO”) covering the complainant’s bedroom. As parties are siblings, I refer to the complainant as the “Brother” and the respondent as the “Sister”.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Background and parties’ cases</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2 The parties came before me with cross applications. The Brother’s chief complaint was that the Sister repeatedly went into his bedroom to clean it. He felt that his privacy was intruded and it had caused him stress such that he was admitted to the Institute of Mental Health (“IMH”) a few times.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_1" id="Ftn_1_1"><sup>[note: 1]</sup></a></span> The Sister, in her defence, explained that she merely wanted to clean the room as her siblings did not clean their rooms.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_2" id="Ftn_2_1"><sup>[note: 2]</sup></a></span> On the other hand, the Sister’s application related to an incident when tensions erupted over the aforesaid issue and the Brother assaulted her.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3 Both parties appeared in person. They were guided through the trial process. Parties were afforded the opportunity to cross-examine each other and make closing submissions. The Sister was in particular afforded multiple opportunities to cross-examine the Brother as she had attempted to state her case in detail instead of putting questions to the Brother during her cross-examination of the Brother.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_3" id="Ftn_3_1"><sup>[note: 3]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4 I granted the Sister’s application for a PPO against the Brother as it was not disputed that the Brother had physically assaulted her. The Brother did not appeal against my decision. I also granted the Brother’s application for the reasons stated below.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">The law</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5 The applicable law is clearly set out in the decision of the High Court (Family Division) in <em>UNQ v UNR</em> <a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/25291-SSP.xml')">[2020] SGHCF 21</a> and I reproduce the relevant parts in the next few paragraphs.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6 The Court is empowered to make a protection order under s 65(1) of the Women’s Charter 1961 (“the Charter”), which states:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1"> <b>Protection order</b> </p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1"> <b>65.</b>—(1) The court may, upon satisfaction on a balance of probabilities that family violence has been committed or is likely to be committed against a family member and that it is necessary for the protection of the family member, make a protection order restraining the person against whom the order is made from using family violence against the family member.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7 There are thus two threshold requirements that must be met before a court may grant a PPO:</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_7-p2_a"></a>(a) First, the court must be satisfied that family violence has been committed or is likely to be committed.</p> <p class="Judg-2"><a id="p1_7-p2_b"></a>(b) Second, the PPO must be necessary for the protection of the family member.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8 Family violence is defined in s 64 of the Charter as follows:</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">“family violence” means the commission of any of the following acts:</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(<em>a</em>) wilfully or knowingly placing, or attempting to place, a family member in fear of hurt;</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(<em>b</em>) 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-QuoteList-2">(<em>c</em>) wrongfully confining or restraining a family member against his will; or</p> <p class="Judg-QuoteList-2">(<em>d</em>) <em>causing continual harassment with intent to cause or knowing that it is likely to cause anguish to a family member</em>,</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">but does not include any force lawfully used in self-defence, or by way of correction towards a child below 21 years of age</p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">[emphasis added]</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_9"></a>9 The civil standard of proof that is applied in determining whether PPOs ought to be granted.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Decision</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_10"></a>10 The sole issue is whether the Sister’s acts in repeatedly entering the Brother’s room to clean it amounted to “continual harassment with intent to cause or knowing that it is likely to cause anguish to [the Brother]”.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_11"></a>11 I accept that ordinarily, a sibling cleaning another sibling’s room would be harmless (and indeed a loving act) and most certainly not amount to harassment. However, each case turns on its own facts. What may be harmless under one set of circumstances might be highly distressing in other circumstances. It is important not to make quick judgments without analysing the facts holistically.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_12"></a>12 A pertinent point to note is that, according to the Brother, the Sister would enter his room sometime between 10pm or 11pm until 4am.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_4" id="Ftn_4_1"><sup>[note: 4]</sup></a></span> This was corroborated by a witness, who is the parties’ sister (“the Witness”), who shared a bedroom<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_5" id="Ftn_5_1"><sup>[note: 5]</sup></a></span> with the Brother:<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_6" id="Ftn_6_1"><sup>[note: 6]</sup></a></span></p> <table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="Judg-2" frame="none" pgwide="1"><colgroup><col width="23.02%"><col width="76.98%"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Witness:</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Yah, because she---she choose the wrong timing to clean the room. And she don’t stay here, she keep insisting to ca---she keep coming back every night about night---last time, 9:00 plus, like sometimes may change 11:00 plus---nowadays it’s 11:00 plus,---</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Court:</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Yes.</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Witness:</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">she may come back in the middle of the night to clean and clean until the wee hours of the night, then she will go back to her own, uh, residence in the early morning like 6:00 plus or sometimes 3:00 plus or something like that, depending---depending---it depends. But it’s something like that, that’s a general one.</p> </td></tr></tbody></table><br clear="left"><br clear="left"> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_13"></a>13 The Sister did not dispute that she went into the Brother’s room to clean it late at night:<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_7" id="Ftn_7_1"><sup>[note: 7]</sup></a></span></p> <table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="Judg-2" frame="none" pgwide="1"><colgroup><col width="16.3%"><col width="83.7%"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Court:</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Okay. But why do you feel the need to go to your parents’ house to---at 10:00pm, say---</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">[Sister]:</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Because I need to work, my dear.</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">[Court]:</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Work what?</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">[Sister]:</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">I need work, my own schedule. I got to go according to my own schedule, my free time. I cannot say, you want me to come at 8:00am, means 8:00am. I’m not their maid, I’m not their worker. Okay. I can only go and do at my own discretion, my own free time wherever I think I---that is the time for me, I’m able to do the work itself. Because I’m---I’m---I’m having my own tight schedule. My work runs 24 hours itself, basically.</p> </td></tr></tbody></table><br clear="left"><br clear="left"> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_14"></a>14 Further, according to the Witness, this had been going on for about eight years.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_8" id="Ftn_8_1"><sup>[note: 8]</sup></a></span> The Witness explained the impact of the Sister’s conduct:<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_9" id="Ftn_9_1"><sup>[note: 9]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">For someone who keep on like causing us distress---at night, we couldn’t sleep---you know, in the past, right, we have to rush back in---during the weekends just to lock inside our room fast, so that she---to prevent her from entering our room to clean our room.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_15"></a>15 It is not difficult to imagine that having someone in one’s bedroom in the wee hours of the night would be disruptive and distressing. The Brother indeed stated that he had been admitted to IMH due to stress (see [2] above). Thus, I accepted that the Sister’s conduct had caused him anguish. Indeed, I note that the tensions erupted one day such that the Brother assaulted the Sister. While this was unacceptable (and was the reason why I granted the PPO for the Sister), it provided further support for the finding that the Sister’s conduct had caused the Brother deep distress.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_16"></a>16 The next question is whether the Sister intended to or at least knew that her conduct would cause the Brother anguish. The evidence showed clearly Sister was aware that the Brother did not want her in his room. The Sister confirmed that the Brother had told her the same “numerous” times, which also confirmed that there were many instances of her entering the Brother’s room despite his protests.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_10" id="Ftn_10_1"><sup>[note: 10]</sup></a></span> The Witness also confirmed that the Sister would not take “no” for an answer, and when she (<em>ie</em>, the Witness) tried to lock the bedroom door (as stated at [12], the Witness shared a room with the Brother), the Sister would attempt to enter their room through other means.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_11" id="Ftn_11_1"><sup>[note: 11]</sup></a></span> In light of the evidence of both the Brother and the Witness, I was satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the Sister knew that her conduct in entering the Brother’s bedroom against his will would cause him anguish.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_17"></a>17 I did not accept the Sister’s case which was essentially that she had to clean the room for the sake of hygiene. For example, she said:<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_12" id="Ftn_12_1"><sup>[note: 12]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">No, if the person does housework themselves, clean up their own room themselves, it’s fine. But they don’t even do so at all after 40 years of age. Not even one finger, not---don’t even lift, they---the whole window frame can be black colour. Okay. Because it’s very windy and we---we are on a low floor, and low floor unit, bad thing about that is there’s a lot of pests. They---they can even let a lizards go into the cupboard and stay inside there and---and breed and let cockroach, um, lay eggs all these things. And then---and then the cupboard mood---turned mouldy with yellow dots itself. So, when things is spoil, who is the one who repair? I am the one who repair and pay for everything. Huh? They don’t even pay a cent, they don’t even they---bother. When light is spoil, I repair. Everything I do.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_18"></a>18 However, there was no evidence to show that the Brother’s room was in such a squalid state that it had to be cleaned frequently against his will. There was also no evidence of pests in the Brother’s room or the house. To be clear, the photographs tendered by the Sister only showed at most a messy house;<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_13" id="Ftn_13_1"><sup>[note: 13]</sup></a></span> certainly not a house in such a state that she had to clean the Brother’s room in the wee hours of the night against his will. In any event, both parties are adults and it was not necessary for the Sister to impose her own hygiene standards on her Brother.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_19"></a>19 To sum up, this was a case where the Sister entered the Brother’s room numerous times despite him making it clear many times that this intruded his privacy. The Sister would do so in the wee hours of the night, disrupting his rest. The Brother was so stressed that he was admitted to IMH (see [2] above). All these while, the Sister was aware that the Brother did not like her in his room. I was therefore satisfied that the Sister’s conduct amounted to continual harassment knowing that it was likely to cause anguish to the Brother. I was hence satisfied that the Sister had committed family violence against the Brother.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_20"></a>20 I turn to the question of whether it was necessary to grant the orders sought. It was clear from the evidence that the Sister had no insight into the impact of her conduct on her Brother. When queried whether she was willing to stop going into the Brother’s room given his discomfort, she replied:<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_14" id="Ftn_14_1"><sup>[note: 14]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-Quote-1">No, because---because he---because this unit belongs to my dad, not him. If he’s not comfortable, he can stay out. You ask him to stay out or get his own place. Because literally, he don’t upkeep his room and he’ll breed all the pest. Uh, because 2nd floor got a lot of pest. Whatever pest you name it, we got it. My mum’s ha---my mum’s room even got a cluster cockroach staying, yah.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_21"></a>21 As a result of the lack of insight and her clear insistence that she would continue entering the Brother’s room despite knowing the Brother’s distress, I found it necessary to grant both a PPO and a partial DEO (covering the Brother’s bedroom) for the Brother’s protection.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Conclusion</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_22"></a>22 For the above reasons, I allowed the Brother’s application for both a PPO and a partial DEO.</p> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_1_1" id="Ftn_1">[note: 1]</a></sup>Brother’s Complaint Form; Certified Transcript at p 46.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_2_1" id="Ftn_2">[note: 2]</a></sup>Certified Transcript at p 9.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_3_1" id="Ftn_3">[note: 3]</a></sup>Certified Transcript at pp 28 to 33.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_4_1" id="Ftn_4">[note: 4]</a></sup>Certified Transcript at p 27.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_5_1" id="Ftn_5">[note: 5]</a></sup>Certified Transcript at p 20.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_6_1" id="Ftn_6">[note: 6]</a></sup>Certified Transcript at p 38.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_7_1" id="Ftn_7">[note: 7]</a></sup>Certified Transcript at pp 29 and 30.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_8_1" id="Ftn_8">[note: 8]</a></sup>Certified Transcript at p 40.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_9_1" id="Ftn_9">[note: 9]</a></sup>Ibid.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_10_1" id="Ftn_10">[note: 10]</a></sup>Certified Transcript at p 11.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_11_1" id="Ftn_11">[note: 11]</a></sup>Certified Transcript at p 39.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_12_1" id="Ftn_12">[note: 12]</a></sup>Certified Transcript at p 12.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_13_1" id="Ftn_13">[note: 13]</a></sup>Sister’s documents at pages 10 to 12.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_14_1" id="Ftn_14">[note: 14]</a></sup>Certified Transcript at p 15.</p></div></content></root> | 1829 |
Links from other tables
- 2 rows from _item in fc_judgments_version