Mendel Yap

Mendel Yap is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2021 to 2021. The lawyer has handled 1 case in Singapore's courts. Associated with 1 law firm. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in civil practice and costs. Their track record shows a 100.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 1 complex case, representing 100% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Mendel Yap has demonstrated expertise across 8 primary practice areas, with significant experience in arbitration and building and construction contracts.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Arbitration	1 cases	13% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Mendel Yap has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 13% of their total caseload.
Building and Construction Contracts	1 cases	13% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Mendel Yap has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 13% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	1 cases	13% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Mendel Yap has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 13% of their total caseload.
Construction Law	1 cases	13% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Mendel Yap has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 13% of their total caseload.
Costs	1 cases	13% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Mendel Yap has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 13% of their total caseload.
Indemnity costs	1 cases	13% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Mendel Yap has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 13% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	1 cases	13% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Mendel Yap has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 13% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	1 cases	13% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Mendel Yap has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 13% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Mendel Yap has been affiliated with 1 law firm. The most active affiliation involves 1 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Ling Das & Partners	1 cases	100% of cases	GTMS Construction v Ser Kim Koi: Costs Allocation in Construction Dispute(Feb 2021)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Mendel Yap's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 4.0
Complex Cases: 1 (100%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Won	14.0 parties avg	4.0	100%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2021	14.0 parties avg	4.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Won	1(100%)	100%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	0.00	0.001 cases	1

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2021	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 1 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	GTMS Construction v Ser Kim Koi: Costs Allocation in Construction Dispute 09 Feb 2021 GTMS Construction Pte Ltd (Plaintiff, Defendant in counterclaim)Won	09 Feb 2021	GTMS Construction Pte Ltd (Plaintiff, Defendant in counterclaim): Costs awardedCosts awarded on a standard basis from 13 January 2014 up until 8 November 2018, with costs payable on an indemnity basis thereafter. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.