Paul Sandosham

Paul Sandosham is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2000 to 2016. The lawyer has handled 8 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 2 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in civil practice and pre-action discovery. Their track record shows a 75.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 2 complex cases, representing 25% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Paul Sandosham has demonstrated expertise across 31 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and arbitration.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	8 cases	14% of total caseload	Experienced52% relevance score	Paul Sandosham has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 8 cases which represents 14% of their total caseload.
Arbitration	6 cases	11% of total caseload	Experienced63% relevance score	Paul Sandosham has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 6 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	4 cases	7% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Paul Sandosham has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	3 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Paul Sandosham has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Company Law	3 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice35% relevance score	Paul Sandosham has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Stay of Proceedings	3 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced67% relevance score	Paul Sandosham has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Jurisdiction	2 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	Paul Sandosham has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Evidence	2 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced53% relevance score	Paul Sandosham has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Fraud and Deceit	2 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Paul Sandosham has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	2 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Paul Sandosham has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Construction Law	2 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	Paul Sandosham has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Costs	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Paul Sandosham has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Disclosure Obligations	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Paul Sandosham has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Summary Judgement	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Paul Sandosham has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Pre-action discovery	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Paul Sandosham has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Building Contract	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Paul Sandosham has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Architects Liability	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Paul Sandosham has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
International Price Range	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Paul Sandosham has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Insolvency	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Paul Sandosham has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Paul Sandosham has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Interim Certificate	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Paul Sandosham has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Asset Recovery	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Paul Sandosham has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Banking Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Paul Sandosham has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Building and Construction Contracts	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Paul Sandosham has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Commercial Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Paul Sandosham has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Forum Non Conveniens	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Paul Sandosham has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Property Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice25% relevance score	Paul Sandosham has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Winding Up	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Paul Sandosham has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Misrepresentation	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Paul Sandosham has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Contractual terms	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Paul Sandosham has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Set-off	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Paul Sandosham has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Paul Sandosham has been affiliated with 2 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 6 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Wong Partnership	6 cases	75% of cases	Exxonmobil v Bombay Dyeing: Forum Non Conveniens & Stay of Proceedings in Contract Dispute(Aug 2007) Yee Hong Pte Ltd v Tan Chye Hee Andrew: Stay of Proceedings and Arbitration in Construction Dispute(Aug 2005) Multiplex Constructions v Sintal: Stay of Proceedings & Arbitration for Delay Damages(Mar 2005)
Cavenagh Law LLP	2 cases	25% of cases	Success Elegant Trading v La Dolce Vita: Pre-Action Discovery & Fraud(Aug 2016) La Dolce Vita v Deutsche Bank: Pre-Action Discovery & Tracing Fraudulent Transfers(Feb 2016)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Paul Sandosham's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 3.3
Complex Cases: 2 (25%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	12.0 parties avg	2.0	13%
Partial	12.0 parties avg	2.0	13%
Won	63.6 parties avg	3.6	75%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2000	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2002	22.0 parties avg	2.0
2005	22.5 parties avg	2.5
2007	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2016	25.0 parties avg	5.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	1(13%)	13%
Partial	1(13%)	13%
Won	6(75%)	75%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	0.00	0.005 cases	5

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2000	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2002	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2005	2 11	Partial: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2007	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2016	2 2	Won: 2 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 8 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Success Elegant Trading v La Dolce Vita: Pre-Action Discovery & Fraud 14 Aug 2016 La Dolce Vita Fine Dining Group Holdings Limited (Respondent, Plaintiff)Won	14 Aug 2016	La Dolce Vita Fine Dining Group Holdings Limited (Respondent, Plaintiff): Appeal AllowedAppeal allowed against the costs orders of the AR and granted the Plaintiffs costs here and below, to be taxed if not agreed (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
2	La Dolce Vita v Deutsche Bank: Pre-Action Discovery & Tracing Fraudulent Transfers 25 Feb 2016 La Dolce Vita Fine Dining Group Holdings Limited (Plaintiff)Won	25 Feb 2016	La Dolce Vita Fine Dining Group Holdings Limited (Plaintiff): Application grantedApplication for pre-action discovery granted.
3	Exxonmobil v Bombay Dyeing: Forum Non Conveniens & Stay of Proceedings in Contract Dispute 27 Aug 2007 Exxonmobil Asia Pacific Pte Ltd (Plaintiff, Respondent)Won	27 Aug 2007	Exxonmobil Asia Pacific Pte Ltd (Plaintiff, Respondent): Appeal dismissedAppeal dismissed; Exxonmobil is entitled to costs (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
4	Yee Hong Pte Ltd v Tan Chye Hee Andrew: Stay of Proceedings and Arbitration in Construction Dispute 30 Aug 2005 Ho Bee Development Pte Ltd (Third Party)Won	30 Aug 2005	Ho Bee Development Pte Ltd (Third Party): Appeal AllowedAppeal allowed; proceedings stayed and referred to arbitration.
5	Multiplex Constructions v Sintal: Stay of Proceedings & Arbitration for Delay Damages 02 Mar 2005 Sintal Enterprise Pte Ltd (Respondent)Partial	02 Mar 2005	Sintal Enterprise Pte Ltd (Respondent): Appeal partially dismissedAppeal partially dismissed, no stay granted for interim certificate 27. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
6	MRI Worldwide Ltd v Management Recruiters International: Winding Up Petition Based on Disputed Debt 12 Aug 2002 Management Recruiters International (Asia) Pte Ltd (Respondent)Won	12 Aug 2002	Management Recruiters International (Asia) Pte Ltd (Respondent): Petition DismissedWinding up petition dismissed with costs to be taxed on the standard basis, if not agreed. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
7	Mae Engineering v Dragages Singapore: Stay of Proceedings & Arbitration Agreement 24 Apr 2002 Dragages Singapore Pte Ltd (fka Dragages et Travaux Publics (S) Pte Ltd) (Defendant, Appellant)Lost	24 Apr 2002	Dragages Singapore Pte Ltd (fka Dragages et Travaux Publics (S) Pte Ltd) (Defendant, Appellant): Appeal dismissedDragages' appeal against the dismissal of their application for a stay of proceedings and the granting of summary judgment to Mae Engineering was dismissed (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
8	Lum Chang v Anderson Land: Challenging Arbitration Award Under Section 22 of the Arbitration Act 04 Apr 2000 Anderson Land Pte Ltd (Respondent)Won	04 Apr 2000	Anderson Land Pte Ltd (Respondent): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed in favor of Anderson Land Pte Ltd.