Kannan Ramesh

Kannan Ramesh is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2002 to 2014. The lawyer has handled 30 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 2 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in civil practice and patents. Their track record shows a 37.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 10 complex cases, representing 33% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated expertise across 107 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and company law.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	21 cases	10% of total caseload	Experienced57% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 21 cases which represents 10% of their total caseload.
Company Law	12 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced58% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 12 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	10 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced72% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 10 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Commercial Disputes	9 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 9 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Fiduciary Duties	8 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced64% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 8 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Banking and Finance	6 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced54% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 6 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Estoppel	5 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice41% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 5 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Bankruptcy	4 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 4 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Damages	4 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced59% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Property Law	4 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice36% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 4 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	4 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized78% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	3 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice37% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Corporate Litigation	3 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Patents	3 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Limitation	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Derivative action	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced63% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Torts	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Dynamic Currency Conversion	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Financial Crisis	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced53% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Winding Up	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Commercial Law	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Minority Oppression	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Investment Portfolio	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
En Bloc Sales	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized89% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Evidence	2 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Misrepresentation	2 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice28% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Real Estate	2 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice37% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Strata Title Law	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Civil Litigation	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced57% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Evidence Law	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Natural forum	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Damages Assessment	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Overcharging	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Formation of contract	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Costs	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Duty of Candour	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Agency Law	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Trust Law	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Proof of Debt	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Judgments and Orders	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Joint Venture	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Valuation	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Shareholders Agreement	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Duty to Account	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Interpretation of contractual terms	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Tenancy Agreements	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Joinder	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Conspiracy	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Agreements for leases	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Mortgage Law	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Discharge of Counsel	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Locus Standi	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Employees’ Duties	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Patent Infringement	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Patent Validity	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Shareholder Agreements	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Liquidator's Duties	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Investment Advice	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Collective Sale	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Hotel Management	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice35% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Private Banking	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Software Patent	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Secured Convertible Note	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Share Pledge Agreement	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Debenture	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Deeds of Release	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Corporate Notes	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Minority Shareholders Rights	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Audited Accounts	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Innocent Infringement	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Breach of duties	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Scope of duties	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Proper Plaintiff Rule	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Fraud on the Minority	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Tapping	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Lease Agreements	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Credit Facilities	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Conflict of Interests	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Arbitration	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Asset Recovery	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Banking Law	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Business Litigation	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Cannabis Law	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Collections	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Construction Law	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Contracts	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Conveyancing	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Corporate Law	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Creditors Rights	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Debtor and Creditor	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Dispute Resolution	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Employment Law	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Franchises and Franchising	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Intellectual Property Law	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Investments	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Landlord and Tenant Law	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Litigation	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Negligence	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Striking Out Applications	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Telecommunications Law	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Insolvency Law	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Injunctions	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Estate Administration	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Fraud and Deceit	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Conspiracy by Unlawful Means	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Kannan Ramesh has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Kannan Ramesh has been affiliated with 2 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 29 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Tan Kok Quan Partnership	29 cases	97% of cases	Maryani Sadeli v Arjun Permanand Samtani: Equitable Compensation & Breach of Fiduciary Duties in Horizon Towers Collective Sale(Nov 2014) Sharikat Logistics v Ong Boon Chuan: Minority Oppression & Shareholder Dispute(Nov 2014) Sharikat Logistics v Ong Boon Chuan: Breach of Fiduciary Duty & Oppression Claim(Sep 2011)
M/s Tan Kok Quan Partnership	1 cases	3% of cases	Main-Line v UOB & FCC: Patent Infringement, Dynamic Currency Conversion, Account of Profits(Dec 2011)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Kannan Ramesh's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 4.5
Complex Cases: 10 (33%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	133.6 parties avg	3.6	43%
Neutral	214.0 parties avg	14.0	7%
Other	13.0 parties avg	3.0	3%
Partial	33.5 parties avg	3.5	10%
Won	112.8 parties avg	2.8	37%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2002	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2003	42.0 parties avg	2.0
2004	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2005	22.0 parties avg	2.0
2006	43.3 parties avg	3.3
2007	68.1 parties avg	8.1
2008	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2009	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2010	54.0 parties avg	4.0
2011	33.0 parties avg	3.0
2014	24.5 parties avg	4.5

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	13(43%)	43%
Neutral	2(7%)	7%
Other	1(3%)	3%
Partial	3(10%)	10%
Won	11(37%)	37%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	226,336,666.28	12,574,259.2418 cases	18
USD	6,391,182.00	6,391,182.001 cases	1

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2002	1 1	Other: 1 cases (100.0%)
2003	4 112	Lost: 1 cases (25.0%) Partial: 1 cases (25.0%) Won: 2 cases (50.0%)
2004	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2005	2 11	Partial: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2006	4 22	Lost: 2 cases (50.0%) Won: 2 cases (50.0%)
2007	6 2211	Lost: 2 cases (33.3%) Neutral: 2 cases (33.3%) Partial: 1 cases (16.7%) Won: 1 cases (16.7%)
2008	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2009	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2010	5 41	Lost: 4 cases (80.0%) Won: 1 cases (20.0%)
2011	3 21	Lost: 2 cases (66.7%) Won: 1 cases (33.3%)
2014	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 30 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Maryani Sadeli v Arjun Permanand Samtani: Equitable Compensation & Breach of Fiduciary Duties in Horizon Towers Collective Sale 19 Nov 2014 Maryani Sadeli (Appellant)Lost	19 Nov 2014	Maryani Sadeli (Appellant): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed with costs of $30,000 awarded to each respondent (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
2	Sharikat Logistics v Ong Boon Chuan: Minority Oppression & Shareholder Dispute 04 Nov 2014 Sharikat Logistics Pte Ltd (Plaintiff)Won	04 Nov 2014	Sharikat Logistics Pte Ltd (Plaintiff): Claim AllowedTGDPL shall forthwith purchase Sharikat’s shares in the Company at the price of $2,034,300 less the outstanding amount owed to the Company (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
3	Main-Line v UOB & FCC: Patent Infringement, Dynamic Currency Conversion, Account of Profits 19 Dec 2011 United Overseas Bank Ltd (Defendant)Lost	19 Dec 2011	United Overseas Bank Ltd (Defendant): Account of profits orderedAccount of profits ordered against United Overseas Bank Limited.
4	Sharikat Logistics v Ong Boon Chuan: Breach of Fiduciary Duty & Oppression Claim 01 Sep 2011 Sharikat Logistics Pte Ltd (Plaintiff, Appellant)Won	01 Sep 2011	Sharikat Logistics Pte Ltd (Plaintiff, Appellant): Appeal AllowedAppeal against the order compelling the plaintiff to provide further and better particulars of its claim was allowed.
5	Go Dante Yap v Bank Austria: Investment Losses & Advisory Duty Dispute 07 Aug 2011 Go Dante Yap (Appellant)Lost	07 Aug 2011	Go Dante Yap (Appellant): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed; Appellant to pay 90% of the Respondent's costs of the appeal. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
6	Rockline Ltd v Silverlink Holdings: Remedies for Failure to Issue SAP Notes 25 Aug 2010 Silverlink Holdings Ltd (Defendant)Lost	25 Aug 2010	Silverlink Holdings Ltd (Defendant): Judgment against DefendantSilverlink and/or Argent are to pay Superon the principal sum of US$6,391,182.00, interest at 5% per annum and redemption premium at 10% per annum computed from 15 July 2003 to 30 June 2008.
7	Thumb (China) Holdings v Hero Key: Deed of Release & Share Charge Dispute 23 Aug 2010 Thumb (China) Holdings Group Ltd (in liquidation) (Plaintiff)Won	23 Aug 2010	Thumb (China) Holdings Group Ltd (in liquidation) (Plaintiff): Judgment for PlaintiffThe court declared that Hero Key was obligated to take steps to release a share charge.
8	Go Dante Yap v Bank Austria: Investment Losses & Bank's Duty of Care 04 Aug 2010 Go Dante Yap (Plaintiff)Lost	04 Aug 2010	Go Dante Yap (Plaintiff): Claim DismissedPlaintiff's action was dismissed with costs to be taxed unless agreed. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
9	Rockline Ltd v Silverlink Holdings: Breach of Contract over Refusal to Issue Corporate Notes 25 Apr 2010 Argent Holdings Limited (Defendant)Lost	25 Apr 2010	Argent Holdings Limited (Defendant): Judgment against DefendantJudgment against the Defendant; the court will hear parties as to the appropriate remedies and relief before making any order herein. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
10	Main-Line Corporate Holdings Ltd v United Overseas Bank Ltd: Patent Infringement & Interim Payment 02 Mar 2010 United Overseas Bank Ltd (Respondent)Lost	02 Mar 2010	United Overseas Bank Ltd (Respondent): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed; UOB to pay Main-Line $1,962,424.30 as interim payment (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
11	Fustar Chemicals Ltd v Liquidator of Fustar Chemicals Pte Ltd: Proof of Debt in Members' Voluntary Winding Up 29 Jul 2009 Liquidator of Fustar Chemicals Pte Ltd (Respondent)Lost	29 Jul 2009	Liquidator of Fustar Chemicals Pte Ltd (Respondent): Appeal dismissedAppeal dismissed; OSH directed to accept FCL’s proof of debt, inclusive of interest at the rate of 3% per annum which is to be calculated on the basis it commences 3 months after the date the proof of debt was lodged with the Company. The appellant will be entitled to costs here and below, with the usual consequential orders. OSH’s costs and disbursements in relation and incidental to FCL’s proof of debt were not properly incurred and she is entitled to be paid her costs and disbursements from the assets of the Company only after all the Company’s creditors have been paid. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
12	Fustar Chemicals Ltd v Ong Soo Hwa: Proof of Debt in Company Winding Up 09 Nov 2008 Ong Soo Hwa (liquidator of Fustar Chemicals Pte Ltd) (Defendant)Won	09 Nov 2008	Ong Soo Hwa (liquidator of Fustar Chemicals Pte Ltd) (Defendant): Application DismissedThe liquidator's decision to reject Fustar Chemicals Ltd's proof of debt was upheld, and the application to reverse the decision was dismissed with costs (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
13	Siow Doreen v Lo Pui Sang: Collective Sale Agreement Validity & Strata Titles Board Powers 10 Oct 2007 Others (Second Intervener)Neutral	10 Oct 2007	Others (Second Intervener): NeutralThe intervener's position was noted but no specific outcome was assigned.
14	Ting Sing Ning v Ting Chek Swee: Derivative Action, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and Fraud on Minority Exception 08 Oct 2007 Ting Sing Ning (alias Malcolm Ding) (Appellant)Won	08 Oct 2007	Ting Sing Ning (alias Malcolm Ding) (Appellant): Appeal AllowedThe appellant's appeal was allowed, granting him the right to pursue the derivative action.
15	Nagase Singapore v Ching Kai Huat: Conspiracy & Overcharging Dispute 02 Oct 2007 Yip Kian Koon, Clement (Defendant)Lost	02 Oct 2007	Yip Kian Koon, Clement (Defendant): Judgment against DefendantDamages awarded for negligence. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
16	Siow Doreen v Lo Pui Sang: Application for En Bloc Sale Intervention 30 Sep 2007 Maryani Sadeli (Respondent)Neutral	30 Sep 2007	Maryani Sadeli (Respondent): OtherApplication to intervene allowed.
17	Nagase Singapore v Ching Kai Huat: Breach of Duty, Conspiracy, Overcharging 03 May 2007 Mary Ting Chi Fong (Defendant)Partial	03 May 2007	Mary Ting Chi Fong (Defendant): Judgment against DefendantJudgment against Defendant for sums to be determined (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
18	Asia Hotel Investments v Starwood: Breach of Contract & Lost Hotel Opportunity 09 Apr 2007 STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS WORLDWIDE, INC (Defendant)Lost	09 Apr 2007	STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS WORLDWIDE, INC (Defendant): Judgment against DefendantOrdered to pay THB110,839,006 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore) plus interest.
19	Main-Line Corporate Holdings Ltd v United Overseas Bank Ltd: Patent Infringement & Dynamic Currency Conversion 20 Dec 2006 United Overseas Bank Ltd (Defendant)Lost	20 Dec 2006	United Overseas Bank Ltd (Defendant): Counterclaim DismissedThe defendant's counterclaim for invalidating the patent was dismissed.
20	Ting Sing Ning v Ting Chek Swee: Locus Standi in Shareholder Fraud Claim 26 Oct 2006 Ting Sing Ning (alias Malcolm Ding) (Plaintiff)Lost	26 Oct 2006	Ting Sing Ning (alias Malcolm Ding) (Plaintiff): Action DismissedThe plaintiff's action was dismissed with costs to follow the event and to be taxed if not agreed. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
21	United Overseas Bank v Chia Kin Tuck: Priority Dispute Between Mortgagee and Judgment Creditor 24 May 2006 United Overseas Bank Ltd (Plaintiff)Won	24 May 2006	United Overseas Bank Ltd (Plaintiff): Judgment for PlaintiffDeclaration acknowledging its prior right to conduct the sale of the mortgaged property granted. The judgment does not specify a currency, so SGD is assumed as the jurisdiction is Singapore.
22	SingTel v Starhub: Breach of Contract & Interpretation of Exclusion Clause in Network Lease Agreement 05 Feb 2006 Singapore Telecommunications Ltd (Appellant)Won	05 Feb 2006	Singapore Telecommunications Ltd (Appellant): Appeal AllowedAppeal allowed with costs; judgment on liability entered in favor of SingTel and for damages to be assessed. The currency is assumed to be SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
23	SingTel v Starhub: Breach of Contract for Unauthorized Use of Leased Fibre Optic Network 27 Apr 2005 Singapore Telecommunications Ltd (Plaintiff)Partial	27 Apr 2005	Singapore Telecommunications Ltd (Plaintiff): Judgment for PlaintiffJudgment for Plaintiff; damages not recoverable due to Article 8.5(a). Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
24	SM Integrated Transware v Schenker Singapore: Lease Agreement Dispute 29 Mar 2005 SM Integrated Transware Pte Ltd (Plaintiff)Won	29 Mar 2005	SM Integrated Transware Pte Ltd (Plaintiff): Judgment for PlaintiffJudgment for the Plaintiff in the amount of $505,691.85, plus costs and interest. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
25	Telestop v Telecom Equipment: Franchise Agreement Breach & Non-Competition 29 Nov 2004 Telecom Equipment Pte Ltd (Defendant)Won	29 Nov 2004	Telecom Equipment Pte Ltd (Defendant): Judgment for DefendantJudgment for the defendant with costs. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
26	Tan Kim Seng v Ibrahim Victor Adam: Automatic Discontinuance After Interlocutory Judgment 20 Nov 2003 Tan Kim Seng (Appellant, Defendant)Won	20 Nov 2003	Tan Kim Seng (Appellant, Defendant): Appeal AllowedAppeal allowed; the action is deemed discontinued pursuant to O 21 r 2(6). Costs awarded to the appellant, restricted to the application of O 21 r 2. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
27	Ibrahim v Tan Kim Seng: Discontinuance of Action for Delay in Damages Assessment 17 Jul 2003 Tan Kim Seng trading as Hock Huat Engineering (Defendant, Respondent)Lost	17 Jul 2003	Tan Kim Seng trading as Hock Huat Engineering (Defendant, Respondent): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed. The currency is assumed to be SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
28	Societe Generale v Tai Kee Sing: Forum Non Conveniens & Jurisdiction Clause Dispute 25 Jun 2003 Societe Generale (Plaintiff, Respondent)Won	25 Jun 2003	Societe Generale (Plaintiff, Respondent): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed with costs. The currency is assumed to be SGD, the currency of Singapore.
29	Tan Seow Cheng v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd: Pleadings and Particulars in Defamation Claim 20 Feb 2003 Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd (Defendant)Partial	20 Feb 2003	Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd (Defendant): Appeal upheld in partAppeal upheld in part, with one variation regarding the place where the remarks were made.
30	Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie Hoa: Application for Discharge of Counsel due to Conflict of Interest 22 Apr 2002 Lim Lie Hoa (Defendant, Third Party)Other	22 Apr 2002	Lim Lie Hoa (Defendant, Third Party): OtherThe first defendant's solicitor was discharged from acting for her.