Guy Neale

Guy Neale is a individual in Singapore's legal system. The party has been involved in 4 cases in Singapore's courts. Represented by 6 counsels. Through 1 law firm. Their track record shows a 50.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have been involved in 2 complex cases, representing 50.0% of their total caseload.

Legal Representation

Guy Neale has been represented by 1 law firm and 6 counsels.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Counsels
Allen & Gledhill LLP	4 cases	Ang Cheng Hock William Ong Kristy Tan Clara Tung Bryna Yeo Jacqueline Lee

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Guy Neale's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 4.3
Complex Cases: 2 (50.0%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Dismissed	12.0 parties avg	2.0	25.0%
Lost	17.0 parties avg	7.0	25.0%
Won	24.0 parties avg	4.0	50.0%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2015	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2014	16.0 parties avg	6.0
2013	24.5 parties avg	4.5

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Dismissed	1(25.0%)	25.0%
Lost	1(25.0%)	25.0%
Won	2(50.0%)	50.0%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	0.00	0.003 cases	3

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2015	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2014	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2013	2 11	Dismissed: 1 cases (50.0%) Lost: 1 cases (50.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 4 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Role	Outcome
1	2015-sgca-28 25 May 2015	25 May 2015	Appellant	WonAppeal allowed; the Appellants are entitled to enjoin the Respondent from any further use of the “Ku De Ta” mark, but the court will not grant an injunction if the Respondent undertakes to this court that it will not use the “Ku De Ta” mark or name. The Respondent is to confirm its position in this regard within two weeks of the date of this judgment. In the event the Respondent is not willing to furnish such an undertaking, the court may wish to hear the parties on the scope of the injunction it should grant. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
2	2014-sgca-64 21 Dec 2014	21 Dec 2014	Appellant	WonAppeal allowed; Singapore Marks held on trust for the Partnership.
3	2013-sghc-250 17 Nov 2013	17 Nov 2013	Plaintiff	DismissedPlaintiffs' action dismissed following the dismissal of Suit 314.
4	2013-sghc-249 17 Nov 2013	17 Nov 2013	Plaintiff	LostClaim dismissed; no monetary award. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.