Leonard Chew

Leonard Chew is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2015 to 2019. The lawyer has handled 4 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 1 law firm. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in contempt of court and setting aside. Their track record shows a 75.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 2 complex cases, representing 50% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Leonard Chew has demonstrated expertise across 19 primary practice areas, with significant experience in civil procedure and contract law.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Civil Procedure	4 cases	15% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	Leonard Chew has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 4 cases which represents 15% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	2 cases	8% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	Leonard Chew has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Company Law	2 cases	8% of total caseload	Experienced68% relevance score	Leonard Chew has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Arbitration	2 cases	8% of total caseload	Experienced73% relevance score	Leonard Chew has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Contempt of Court	2 cases	8% of total caseload	Highly Specialized93% relevance score	Leonard Chew has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Recourse against award	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Leonard Chew has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Setting aside	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Leonard Chew has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Costs	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Leonard Chew has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
International Commercial Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Leonard Chew has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Breach of natural justice	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Leonard Chew has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Estoppel	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice5% relevance score	Leonard Chew has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Limitation of Liability	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Leonard Chew has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Wasted Costs	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Leonard Chew has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Adjudication	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Leonard Chew has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Setting aside adjudication determination	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Leonard Chew has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Leonard Chew has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Construction Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Leonard Chew has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Injunctions	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Leonard Chew has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Minority Oppression	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Leonard Chew has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Leonard Chew has been affiliated with 1 law firm. The most active affiliation involves 4 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC	4 cases	100% of cases	BSM v BSN: Setting Aside Arbitral Awards for Breach of Natural Justice & Failure to Present Case(Aug 2019) Bintai Kindenko Pte Ltd v Samsung C&T Corp: Setting Aside Adjudication Determination for Building and Construction Dispute(Dec 2017) Ho Seow Wan v Ho Poey Wee: Contempt of Court for Breaching Court Order(Nov 2015)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Leonard Chew's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 3.3
Complex Cases: 2 (50%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	13.0 parties avg	3.0	25%
Won	33.3 parties avg	3.3	75%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2015	24.0 parties avg	4.0
2017	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2019	13.0 parties avg	3.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	1(25%)	25%
Won	3(75%)	75%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	38,000.00	12,666.673 cases	3

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2015	2 2	Won: 2 cases (100.0%)
2017	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2019	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 4 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	BSM v BSN: Setting Aside Arbitral Awards for Breach of Natural Justice & Failure to Present Case 12 Aug 2019 BSM (Applicant)Lost	12 Aug 2019	BSM (Applicant): Applications DismissedBSM's applications to set aside the arbitral awards were dismissed, and BSM was ordered to pay the Companies’ costs in the sum of $28,000, inclusive of disbursements for both OS 747 and 748. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
2	Bintai Kindenko Pte Ltd v Samsung C&T Corp: Setting Aside Adjudication Determination for Building and Construction Dispute 18 Dec 2017 Samsung C&T Corp (Respondent, Applicant)Won	18 Dec 2017	Samsung C&T Corp (Respondent, Applicant): Application AllowedSamsung's application to set aside the Adjudication Determination was allowed, with costs of $10,000 to be paid by Bintai to Samsung (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
3	Ho Seow Wan v Ho Poey Wee: Contempt of Court for Breaching Court Order 24 Nov 2015 Ho Seow Wan (Plaintiff)Won	24 Nov 2015	Ho Seow Wan (Plaintiff): Successful in committal applicationDefendants found guilty of contempt and fined; plaintiff awarded 90% of costs (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
4	Ho Seow Wan v Ho Poey Wee: Contempt of Court for Breaching Order in Minority Oppression Suit 06 Sep 2015 Ho Seow Wan (Plaintiff)Won	06 Sep 2015	Ho Seow Wan (Plaintiff): Successful in applicationPlaintiff's application for an order for committal of the defendants for contempt of court was successful.