Joo Toon & Co

Joo Toon & Co is a law firm operating in Singapore. With documented cases from 2001 to 2011. The firm has handled 7 cases in Singapore's courts. Supported by a team of 3 counsels. The firm demonstrates particular expertise in breach of contract and wills and probate. Their track record shows a 28.6% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 4 complex cases, representing 57.1% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Joo Toon & Co has demonstrated expertise across 3 primary practice areas, with significant experience in breach of contract and wills and probate.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Breach of Contract	3 cases	50.0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75.00% relevance score	Joo Toon & Co has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 50.0% of their total caseload.
Wills and Probate	2 cases	33.3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90.00% relevance score	Joo Toon & Co has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 33.3% of their total caseload.
Commercial Law	1 cases	16.7% of total caseload	Experienced60.00% relevance score	Joo Toon & Co has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 16.7% of their total caseload.

Legal Team and Representation

Joo Toon & Co has 3 notable counsels who have represented clients in various cases. The most active counsel has handled 7 cases.

Counsel Name	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Lim Joo Toon	7 cases	100.0% of firm's cases	2011 sghc 206(Sep 2011) 2010 sghc 289(Sep 2010) 2009 sgca 25(Jun 2009)
Joseph Tan	2 cases	28.6% of firm's cases	2009 sgca 25(Jun 2009)
Tan Chin Aik Joseph	1 cases	14.3% of firm's cases	2008 sghc 72(May 2008)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Joo Toon & Co's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 5.2
Complex Cases: 4 (57.1%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Partial	25.3 parties avg	5.3	28.6%
Won	25.0 parties avg	5.0	28.6%
Dismissed	13.0 parties avg	3.0	14.3%
Lost	12.0 parties avg	2.0	14.3%
Neutral	17.0 parties avg	7.0	14.3%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2001	17.0 parties avg	7.0
2008	23.5 parties avg	3.5
2009	25.9 parties avg	5.9
2010	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2011	13.0 parties avg	3.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Joo Toon & Co's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Partial	2(28.6%)	28.6%
Won	2(28.6%)	28.6%
Dismissed	1(14.3%)	14.3%
Lost	1(14.3%)	14.3%
Neutral	1(14.3%)	14.3%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
GBP	274333.66	137166.831 cases	1
SGD	1000	200.004 cases	4

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2001	01 1	Neutral: 1 cases (100.0%)
2008	011 11	Partial: 1 cases (9.1%) Won: 1 cases (9.1%)
2009	011 11	Partial: 1 cases (9.1%) Won: 1 cases (9.1%)
2010	01 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2011	01 1	Dismissed: 1 cases (100.0%)

Represented Parties

List of parties represented by Joo Toon & Co in various cases

Party Name	Role	Cases	Outcomes
Ong Wui TeckRespondent, Respondent, Defendant Won (2)	Respondent, Respondent, Defendant	2 cases	Won (2)
Power-Vac Technology Pte LtdDefendant Dismissed (1)	Defendant	1 case	Dismissed (1)
Gateway 21 Pte LtdAppellant, Defendant Lost (1)	Appellant, Defendant	1 case	Lost (1)
Low Ah CheowAppellant Partial (1)	Appellant	1 case	Partial (1)
Ng Bee EngAppellant Partial (1)	Appellant	1 case	Partial (1)
Ng Jian WenAppellant Partial (1)	Appellant	1 case	Partial (1)
Ng Puay GuanAppellant Partial (1)	Appellant	1 case	Partial (1)
Nicholas Ng Zhi KaiAppellant Partial (1)	Appellant	1 case	Partial (1)
Uzbekistan AirwaysPlaintiff Partial (1)	Plaintiff	1 case	Partial (1)
Lim Sew KeeApplicant Neutral (1)	Applicant	1 case	Neutral (1)
Teoh Keng LeeApplicant Neutral (1)	Applicant	1 case	Neutral (1)

Case History

Displaying all 7 cases

Case

2011-sghc-206

15 Sep 2011

Power-Vac Technology Pte LtdDismissed

2010-sghc-289

29 Sep 2010

Gateway 21 Pte LtdLost

2009-sgca-25

23 Jun 2009

Low Ah CheowPartial

Ng Bee EngPartial

Ng Jian WenPartial

Ng Puay GuanPartial

Nicholas Ng Zhi KaiPartial

Partial	Low Ah Cheow (Appellant): Appeal allowed in partThe court found that the Testator did not intend to leave the Estate to Sebastian absolutely as the sole beneficiary. The Testator intended to leave the Estate to Sebastian on trust for those of the Testator’s family members who are entitled to a share of the Estate pursuant to s 7, rr 2 and 3 of the Intestate Succession Act (Cap 146, 1985 Rev Ed).
Partial	Ng Bee Eng (Appellant): Appeal allowed in partThe court found that the Testator did not intend to leave the Estate to Sebastian absolutely as the sole beneficiary. The Testator intended to leave the Estate to Sebastian on trust for those of the Testator’s family members who are entitled to a share of the Estate pursuant to s 7, rr 2 and 3 of the Intestate Succession Act (Cap 146, 1985 Rev Ed).
Partial	Ng Jian Wen (Appellant): Appeal allowed in partThe court found that the Testator did not intend to leave the Estate to Sebastian absolutely as the sole beneficiary. The Testator intended to leave the Estate to Sebastian on trust for those of the Testator’s family members who are entitled to a share of the Estate pursuant to s 7, rr 2 and 3 of the Intestate Succession Act (Cap 146, 1985 Rev Ed).
Partial	Ng Puay Guan (Appellant): Appeal allowed in partThe court found that the Testator did not intend to leave the Estate to Sebastian absolutely as the sole beneficiary. The Testator intended to leave the Estate to Sebastian on trust for those of the Testator’s family members who are entitled to a share of the Estate pursuant to s 7, rr 2 and 3 of the Intestate Succession Act (Cap 146, 1985 Rev Ed).
Partial	Nicholas Ng Zhi Kai (Appellant): Appeal allowed in partThe court found that the Testator did not intend to leave the Estate to Sebastian absolutely as the sole beneficiary. The Testator intended to leave the Estate to Sebastian on trust for those of the Testator’s family members who are entitled to a share of the Estate pursuant to s 7, rr 2 and 3 of the Intestate Succession Act (Cap 146, 1985 Rev Ed).

2009-sghc-50

03 Mar 2009

Ong Wui TeckWon

2008-sghc-138

07 Aug 2008

Uzbekistan AirwaysPartial

2008-sghc-72

13 May 2008

Ong Wui TeckWon

2001-sghc-41

01 Mar 2001

Lim Sew KeeNeutral

Teoh Keng LeeNeutral