Justin Tan

Justin Tan is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2015 to 2018. The lawyer has handled 4 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 1 law firm. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in sentencing and criminal procedure. Their track record shows a 50.0% success rate in resolved cases.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Justin Tan has demonstrated expertise across 23 primary practice areas, with significant experience in sentencing and criminal procedure.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Sentencing	3 cases	10% of total caseload	Highly Specialized92% relevance score	Justin Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 10% of their total caseload.
Criminal Procedure	3 cases	10% of total caseload	Highly Specialized87% relevance score	Justin Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 10% of their total caseload.
Criminal Law	3 cases	10% of total caseload	Highly Specialized92% relevance score	Justin Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 10% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	2 cases	7% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Justin Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Theft	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Justin Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Waiver	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Justin Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Children and Young Persons Act	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Justin Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Estoppel	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Justin Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Murder	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Justin Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Young Offenders	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Justin Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Promissory estoppel	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Justin Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Statutory Interpretation	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Justin Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Criminal conspiracy	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Justin Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Evidence	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Justin Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Justin Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Appeal	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Justin Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Sentencing Principles	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Justin Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Cheating	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Justin Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Arbitration	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Justin Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Common intention	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Justin Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Justin Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Construction Adjudication	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Justin Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Construction Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Justin Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Justin Tan has been affiliated with 1 law firm. The most active affiliation involves 4 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Trident Law Corporation	4 cases	100% of cases	Audi Construction v. Kian Hiap Construction: Security of Payment Act & Validity of Payment Claims(Jan 2018) Zhou Haiming and Luo Jianguo v Public Prosecutor: Casino Theft Conspiracy and CDSA Charges(Feb 2017) Muhammad Zuhairie v PP: Sentencing of Young Offender, Reformative Training vs. Imprisonment & Caning(Jul 2016)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Justin Tan's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 2.5
Complex Cases: 0 (0%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	13.0 parties avg	3.0	25%
Partial	13.0 parties avg	3.0	25%
Won	22.0 parties avg	2.0	50%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2015	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2016	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2017	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2018	12.0 parties avg	2.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Justin Tan's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	1(25%)	25%
Partial	1(25%)	25%
Won	2(50%)	50%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	0.00	0.001 cases	1

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2015	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)
2016	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2017	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2018	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 4 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Audi Construction v. Kian Hiap Construction: Security of Payment Act & Validity of Payment Claims 21 Jan 2018 Audi Construction Pte Ltd (Appellant)Won	21 Jan 2018	Audi Construction Pte Ltd (Appellant): Appeal AllowedAppeal allowed; costs fixed at $20,000 inclusive of disbursements (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
2	Zhou Haiming and Luo Jianguo v Public Prosecutor: Casino Theft Conspiracy and CDSA Charges 28 Feb 2017 Luo Jianguo (Appellant, Respondent)Lost	28 Feb 2017	Luo Jianguo (Appellant, Respondent): Appeal dismissedThe appeal against the sentence for the criminal conspiracy charge was dismissed.
3	Muhammad Zuhairie v PP: Sentencing of Young Offender, Reformative Training vs. Imprisonment & Caning 11 Jul 2016 Muhammad Zuhairie Adely Bin Zulkifli (Appellant)Won	11 Jul 2016	Muhammad Zuhairie Adely Bin Zulkifli (Appellant): Appeal AllowedThe Appellant's sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment and six strokes of the cane was substituted with a sentence of reformative training.
4	Public Prosecutor v Micheal Anak Garing: Sentencing for Murder with Common Intention 19 Apr 2015 TONY ANAK IMBA (Defendant)Partial	19 Apr 2015	TONY ANAK IMBA (Defendant): PartialSentenced to imprisonment for life and 24 strokes of the cane.