UNQ v UNR: Appeal Against Personal Protection Order in Family Violence Case

In UNQ v UNR, the High Court (Family Division) heard an appeal by the Father, UNQ, against the District Court's decision to grant a Personal Protection Order (PPO) to the Mother, UNR, on behalf of their two children. The High Court, presided over by Debbie Ong J, allowed the Father's appeal on 8 September 2020, setting aside the PPO. The court acknowledged the children's stress due to parental conflict but found insufficient evidence that the Father acted with the intention or knowledge to cause them anguish, thus not meeting the threshold for family violence.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court (Family Division)

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Family

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal against a PPO granted to protect children from family violence. The court allowed the appeal, finding no intention to cause anguish.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
UNQAppellantIndividualAppeal AllowedWonRajwin Singh Sandhu
UNRRespondentIndividualAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Debbie OngJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Rajwin Singh SandhuRajwin & Yong LLP

4. Facts

  1. The Father and Mother were married on 12 November 2005 and have two children.
  2. Divorce proceedings commenced in 2016, leading to acrimonious litigation.
  3. The Mother applied for a PPO on behalf of the Children, alleging family violence.
  4. The Father denied the allegations, claiming the Mother interfered with access.
  5. The District Judge granted the PPO, finding family violence had been committed.
  6. The Father appealed the decision, arguing the evidence was insufficient.
  7. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the PPO.

5. Formal Citations

  1. UNQ v UNR, District Court Appeal No 126 of 2019, [2020] SGHCF 21

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Father and Mother married
Divorce proceedings commenced
Mother left the matrimonial home with the Children
Mother filed an application in SS 1383/2016 for a PPO on behalf of the Children and herself
Application SS 1383/2016 was dismissed
Appeal against the decision in SS 1383/2016 was withdrawn
Judicial interview with the Children
Final judgment of divorce was granted
Mother lodged a Magistrate’s Complaint against the Father for family violence and sought a PPO on behalf of the Children
Mother’s affidavit filed in support of the PPO application
DJ granted the application for the PPO on behalf of the two Children
Appeal allowed
Appeal allowed and PPO set aside
Reasons for decision set out

7. Legal Issues

  1. Family Violence
    • Outcome: The court found that the Father's actions did not meet the threshold of family violence as required by law, as there was insufficient evidence to prove the necessary intention or knowledge to cause anguish to the Children.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Intention to cause anguish
      • Wilful harassment
      • Fear of hurt
    • Related Cases:
      • [2017] SGFC 90
  2. Necessity of a Personal Protection Order
    • Outcome: The court found that there was no necessity for a PPO, as there were no proven incidents of physical violence since the incident in November 2017, even without a PPO in place.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Personal Protection Order

9. Cause of Actions

  • Application for Personal Protection Order

10. Practice Areas

  • Family Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
UEJ v UEKFamily Justice CourtsYes[2017] SGFC 90SingaporeCited regarding a previous PPO application by the Mother against the Father, which was dismissed because the Father did not have the necessary mental element of "wilfully or knowingly" placing the Mother or Children in fear of hurt or did not, by his actions, intend to cause or know his actions would be likely to cause anguish.
Tan Hock Chuan v Tan Tiong HwaHigh CourtYes[2002] 2 SLR(R) 90SingaporeCited to emphasize that proceedings before the court are civil proceedings and not criminal proceedings.
UHA v UHB and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2020] 3 SLR 666SingaporeCited regarding the jurisdiction of the court and serves as a safeguard against unnecessary intervention by the court in family matters.
UNB v Child ProtectorHigh CourtYes[2018] 5 SLR 1018SingaporeCited regarding state intervention through the courts in the form of ordering a PPO may risk entrenching the status quo at the time of parental conflict and reinforce a child’s negative perception of one parent.
VDZ v VEACourt of AppealYes[2020] 2 SLR 858SingaporeCited to emphasize that every child requires love and care from both parents in order to grow up and achieve their fullest potential as balanced individuals.
UNR v UNQDistrict CourtYes[2020] SGFC 2SingaporeCited as the decision below, where the DJ granted the application for the PPO on behalf of the two Children, which was the subject of the present appeal.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed)Singapore
Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed)Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Personal Protection Order
  • Family Violence
  • Access Time
  • Parental Conflict
  • Judicial Interview
  • Balance of Probabilities
  • Mental Element
  • Wilfully or Knowingly
  • Anguish
  • Hearsay Evidence

15.2 Keywords

  • family violence
  • personal protection order
  • child custody
  • access rights
  • parental conflict
  • Singapore
  • family law

16. Subjects

  • Family Law
  • Family Violence
  • Child Welfare

17. Areas of Law

  • Family Law
  • Family Violence
  • Protection Orders