Shabnam Arashan

Shabnam Arashan is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2001 to 2011. The lawyer has handled 5 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 3 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in insurance and personal injury. Their track record shows a 40.0% success rate in resolved cases.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Shabnam Arashan has demonstrated expertise across 18 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and civil procedure.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	4 cases	18% of total caseload	Experienced73% relevance score	Shabnam Arashan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 18% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	2 cases	9% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	Shabnam Arashan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 9% of their total caseload.
Construction Law	1 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Shabnam Arashan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Insurance	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Shabnam Arashan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Personal Injury	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Shabnam Arashan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Property Law	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Shabnam Arashan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Real Estate	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Shabnam Arashan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Workers Compensation	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Shabnam Arashan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Measure of Damages	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Shabnam Arashan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Agency Law	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Shabnam Arashan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Options to purchase	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Shabnam Arashan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Damages	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Shabnam Arashan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Evidence	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Shabnam Arashan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Performance of Contract	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Shabnam Arashan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Liability insurance	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Shabnam Arashan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Automobile Accidents	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Shabnam Arashan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Non-contribution clause	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Shabnam Arashan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Civil Litigation	1 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Shabnam Arashan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Shabnam Arashan has been affiliated with 3 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 3 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Haridass Ho & Partners	3 cases	60% of cases	Azuma Engineering v MEP Systems: Option to Purchase & JTC Lease Extension Dispute(Apr 2011) MEP Systems v Azuma Engineering: Option to Purchase Dispute over JTC Confirmation Letter(Sep 2010) Checkpoint Fluidic Systems v Marine Hub: Agency, Indemnity & Third-Party Liability(Jun 2009)
B. Rao K.S. Rajah	1 cases	20% of cases	Liberty Citystate Insurance v AXA Insurance: Validity of Non-Contribution Clause in Liability Insurance(Mar 2001)
B. Rao and K.S. Rajah	1 cases	20% of cases	Chew Poh Kwan Margaret v Toh Hong Guan: Assessment of Damages for Motor Vehicle Accident Injuries(Dec 2004)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Shabnam Arashan's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 2.4
Complex Cases: 0 (0%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	32.7 parties avg	2.7	60%
Won	22.0 parties avg	2.0	40%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2001	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2004	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2009	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2010	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2011	12.0 parties avg	2.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	3(60%)	60%
Won	2(40%)	40%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	248,240.00	124,120.002 cases	2

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2001	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2004	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2009	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2010	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2011	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 5 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Azuma Engineering v MEP Systems: Option to Purchase & JTC Lease Extension Dispute 06 Apr 2011 MEP Systems Pte Ltd (Respondent)Lost	06 Apr 2011	MEP Systems Pte Ltd (Respondent): Appeal DismissedThe appeal was allowed against MEP Systems Pte Ltd, with costs awarded to Azuma Engineering (S) Pte Ltd.
2	MEP Systems v Azuma Engineering: Option to Purchase Dispute over JTC Confirmation Letter 21 Sep 2010 MEP Systems Pte Ltd (Plaintiff)Won	21 Sep 2010	MEP Systems Pte Ltd (Plaintiff): Judgment for PlaintiffJudgment for the Plaintiff; declaration that the option was rescinded and for the refund of $232,000 and $16,240 being the 10% deposit and GST paid upon exercise of the option to purchase on 17 November 2008 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
3	Checkpoint Fluidic Systems v Marine Hub: Agency, Indemnity & Third-Party Liability 02 Jun 2009 Marine Hub Pte Ltd (Respondent)Won	02 Jun 2009	Marine Hub Pte Ltd (Respondent): Judgment for RespondentJudgment for the respondent; appeal dismissed with costs. The judgment does not specify a currency, so SGD is assumed as the jurisdiction is Singapore.
4	Chew Poh Kwan Margaret v Toh Hong Guan: Assessment of Damages for Motor Vehicle Accident Injuries 28 Dec 2004 The personal representatives of Mohamed Noor Bin Mohamed Ali, deceased (Defendant)Lost	28 Dec 2004	The personal representatives of Mohamed Noor Bin Mohamed Ali, deceased (Defendant): Liability AssignedThe second defendant was found 37.5% liable for the plaintiff's damages.
5	Liberty Citystate Insurance v AXA Insurance: Validity of Non-Contribution Clause in Liability Insurance 07 Mar 2001 AXA Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd (Respondent)Lost	07 Mar 2001	AXA Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd (Respondent): Decision set asideDecision of the Commissioner set aside; AXA to pay the compensation awarded (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).