Chung Tan & Partners
Chung Tan & Partners is a law firm operating in Singapore. With documented cases from 2001 to 2003. The firm has handled 2 cases in Singapore's courts. Supported by a team of 3 counsels. The firm demonstrates particular expertise in criminal law. They have managed 1 complex cases, representing 50% of their total caseload.
Areas of Practice and Expertise
Chung Tan & Partners has demonstrated expertise across 2 primary practice areas, with significant experience in criminal law and theft.
Practice Area | Case Volume |
---|---|
Criminal Law | 1 cases |
Theft | 1 cases |
Legal Team and Representation
Chung Tan & Partners has 3 notable counsels who have represented clients in various cases. The most active counsel has handled 1 cases.
Counsel Name | Cases Handled |
---|---|
Tan Cheng Kiong | 1 cases |
Chung Ting Fai | 1 cases |
Bernard Chao | 1 cases |
Case Complexity Analysis
Analysis of Chung Tan & Partners's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.
Complexity Overview
- Average Parties per Case
- 10.0
- Complex Cases
- 1 (50%)
- Cases with more than 3 parties
Complexity by Case Type
Type | Cases |
---|---|
Dismissed | 114.0 parties avg |
Lost | 12.0 parties avg |
Complexity Trends Over Time
Year | Cases |
---|---|
2001 | 114.0 parties avg |
2003 | 12.0 parties avg |
Case Outcome Analytics
Analysis of Chung Tan & Partners's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.
Outcome Distribution
Outcome Type | Cases |
---|---|
Dismissed | 1(50.0%) |
Lost | 1(50.0%) |
Monetary Outcomes
Currency | Average |
---|---|
SGD | 0.001 cases |
Yearly Outcome Trends
Year | Total Cases |
---|---|
2001 | 01 1 |
2003 | 01 1 |
Represented Parties
List of parties represented by Chung Tan & Partners in various cases
Party Name | Cases |
---|---|
Cheung Kan LamAppellant Lost (1) | 1 case |
Fifth defendantDefendant Dismissed (1) | 1 case |
Case History
Displaying all 2 cases
Case |
---|
17 Feb 2003 Cheung Kan LamLost |
30 Dec 2001 Fifth defendantDismissed |