M Ramasamy

M Ramasamy is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2001 to 2015. The lawyer has handled 9 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 3 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in personal injury and negligence. Their track record shows a 56.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 2 complex cases, representing 22% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

M Ramasamy has demonstrated expertise across 43 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and personal injury.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	7 cases	9% of total caseload	General Practice46% relevance score	M Ramasamy has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 7 cases which represents 9% of their total caseload.
Personal Injury	5 cases	7% of total caseload	Highly Specialized78% relevance score	M Ramasamy has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 5 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	5 cases	7% of total caseload	General Practice43% relevance score	M Ramasamy has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 5 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Evidence	4 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	M Ramasamy has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Automobile Accidents	4 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	M Ramasamy has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Negligence	4 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized78% relevance score	M Ramasamy has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Loss of Earning Capacity	2 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced68% relevance score	M Ramasamy has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Construction Law	2 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	M Ramasamy has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Insurance	2 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized83% relevance score	M Ramasamy has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Property Damage	2 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice35% relevance score	M Ramasamy has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Workers Compensation	2 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	M Ramasamy has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Causation	2 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	M Ramasamy has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Judgments and Orders	2 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	M Ramasamy has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Double Insurance	2 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	M Ramasamy has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Contribution and Average	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	M Ramasamy has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Contributory negligence	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	M Ramasamy has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Damages Assessment	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	M Ramasamy has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Apportionment	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	M Ramasamy has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Costs	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	M Ramasamy has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Settlement Agreement	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	M Ramasamy has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Breach of Duty of Care	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	M Ramasamy has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Property Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	M Ramasamy has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Traffic Collision	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	M Ramasamy has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Medical Negligence	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	M Ramasamy has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Damages	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	M Ramasamy has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Loss of future earnings	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	M Ramasamy has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Assessment of Damages	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	M Ramasamy has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Parol Evidence Rule	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	M Ramasamy has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Insurance Bad Faith	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	M Ramasamy has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Liability insurance	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	M Ramasamy has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Offer and Acceptance	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	M Ramasamy has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Nuisance	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	M Ramasamy has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Contracts	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	M Ramasamy has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Traffic Accident Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	M Ramasamy has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Fire Safety Regulations	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice35% relevance score	M Ramasamy has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Maintenance of Fire Protection Systems	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	M Ramasamy has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Legal Representation	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	M Ramasamy has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Non-contribution clause	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	M Ramasamy has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Construction of Insurance Policy	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	M Ramasamy has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Torts	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	M Ramasamy has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Wills and Probate	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	M Ramasamy has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Motor Vehicle Accident Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	M Ramasamy has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Estate Administration	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	M Ramasamy has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

M Ramasamy has been affiliated with 3 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 4 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
M Rama Law Corporation	4 cases	44% of cases	Union Concept Manufacturers v Rhythme Technology: Negligence Claim for Fire Damage Due to Faulty Fire Hose Reel(May 2015) Teddy, Thomas v Teacly (S) Pte Ltd: Assessment of Damages for Personal Injury(Nov 2014) Teo Gim Tiong v Krishnasamy Pushpavathi: Enforceability of Settlement Agreement After Plaintiff's Death(Jul 2014)
William Chai & Rama	3 cases	33% of cases	Yang Xi Na v Lim Chong Hong: Determining Liability in a Collision with a Parked Vehicle(May 2006) Choong Peng Kong v Koh Hong Son: Damages for Personal Injuries & Loss of Future Earnings(Jun 2003) Liberty Citystate Insurance v AXA Insurance: Validity of Non-Contribution Clause in Liability Insurance(Mar 2001)
William Chai and Rama	2 cases	22% of cases	Ong Bee Nah v Won Siew Wan: Negligence, Traffic Accident, Evidence Admissibility(Mar 2005) China Insurance v Liberty Insurance: Double Insurance & Contribution Claims(Feb 2005)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of M Ramasamy's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 3.0
Complex Cases: 2 (22%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	23.5 parties avg	3.5	22%
Partial	22.0 parties avg	2.0	22%
Won	53.0 parties avg	3.0	56%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2001	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2003	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2005	24.0 parties avg	4.0
2006	14.0 parties avg	4.0
2011	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2014	22.0 parties avg	2.0
2015	13.0 parties avg	3.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	2(22%)	22%
Partial	2(22%)	22%
Won	5(56%)	56%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	0.00	0.003 cases	3

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2001	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2003	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2005	2 2	Won: 2 cases (100.0%)
2006	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2011	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)
2014	2 11	Partial: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2015	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 9 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Union Concept Manufacturers v Rhythme Technology: Negligence Claim for Fire Damage Due to Faulty Fire Hose Reel 03 May 2015 P & K Services Pte Ltd (Plaintiff)Lost	03 May 2015	P & K Services Pte Ltd (Plaintiff): Claim DismissedThe plaintiff's claim for damages due to the defendant's negligence was dismissed.
2	Teddy, Thomas v Teacly (S) Pte Ltd: Assessment of Damages for Personal Injury 05 Nov 2014 Teacly (S) Pte Ltd (Defendant, Appellant)Partial	05 Nov 2014	Teacly (S) Pte Ltd (Defendant, Appellant): Appeal allowed in partThe appeal was allowed in part. The awards made by the AR in respect of loss of pre-trial earnings and loss of future earnings were set aside. Instead, the plaintiff was awarded $180,000 as loss of earning capacity (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
3	Teo Gim Tiong v Krishnasamy Pushpavathi: Enforceability of Settlement Agreement After Plaintiff's Death 23 Jul 2014 Teo Gim Tiong (Appellant, Defendant)Won	23 Jul 2014	Teo Gim Tiong (Appellant, Defendant): Appeal AllowedAppeal allowed; the court held that the victim's mother had no capacity to accept the offer.
4	Lonpac Insurance v American Home: Double Insurance & Extrinsic Evidence in Workmen's Compensation 29 Nov 2011 Lonpac Insurance Bhd (Plaintiff, Appellant)Partial	29 Nov 2011	Lonpac Insurance Bhd (Plaintiff, Appellant): Appeal Allowed in PartDecision set aside and remitted for re-hearing; extrinsic evidence to be considered. Costs of the originating summons to be borne by AHA.
5	Yang Xi Na v Lim Chong Hong: Determining Liability in a Collision with a Parked Vehicle 30 May 2006 Woodlands Transport Service Pte Ltd (Defendant)Lost	30 May 2006	Woodlands Transport Service Pte Ltd (Defendant): Liability to PlaintiffThe defendant was found liable to the plaintiff. The judgment does not specify a monetary amount. The currency is assumed to be SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
6	Ong Bee Nah v Won Siew Wan: Negligence, Traffic Accident, Evidence Admissibility 15 Mar 2005 Yong Tian Choy (Third Party)Won	15 Mar 2005	Yong Tian Choy (Third Party): Action dismissedDefendant’s action against the third party is dismissed with costs, to be taxed or agreed. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
7	China Insurance v Liberty Insurance: Double Insurance & Contribution Claims 27 Feb 2005 Liberty Insurance Pte Ltd (formerly known as Liberty Citystate Insurance Pte Ltd) (Defendant)Won	27 Feb 2005	Liberty Insurance Pte Ltd (formerly known as Liberty Citystate Insurance Pte Ltd) (Defendant): Application DismissedThe court dismissed the plaintiff's application with costs, ruling in favor of the defendant. The judgment does not specify a currency, so SGD is assumed as the jurisdiction is Singapore.
8	Choong Peng Kong v Koh Hong Son: Damages for Personal Injuries & Loss of Future Earnings 22 Jun 2003 Koh Hong Son (Defendant, Respondent)Won	22 Jun 2003	Koh Hong Son (Defendant, Respondent): Appeal DismissedDefendant's appeal for lower damages was dismissed. The claimant was ordered to pay costs of $2,500 of the appeals to the defendant (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
9	Liberty Citystate Insurance v AXA Insurance: Validity of Non-Contribution Clause in Liability Insurance 07 Mar 2001 Liberty Citystate Insurance Pte Ltd (Appellant, Respondent)Won	07 Mar 2001	Liberty Citystate Insurance Pte Ltd (Appellant, Respondent): Appeal allowedAppeal allowed; Citystate not liable to pay compensation due to valid non-contribution clause.