Andre Francis Maniam

Andre Francis Maniam is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2007 to 2020. The lawyer has handled 4 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 2 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in contract law and restraint of trade. Their track record shows a 50.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 3 complex cases, representing 75% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Andre Francis Maniam has demonstrated expertise across 28 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and company law.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	4 cases	11% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Andre Francis Maniam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.
Company Law	3 cases	8% of total caseload	General Practice25% relevance score	Andre Francis Maniam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Employment Law	3 cases	8% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Andre Francis Maniam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	2 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced73% relevance score	Andre Francis Maniam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Torts	2 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Andre Francis Maniam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Conspiracy by Unlawful Means	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice35% relevance score	Andre Francis Maniam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Measure of Damages	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Andre Francis Maniam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Jurisdiction	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Andre Francis Maniam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Contractual terms	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Andre Francis Maniam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Natural justice	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Andre Francis Maniam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Damages Assessment	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Andre Francis Maniam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Implied Terms	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Andre Francis Maniam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Andre Francis Maniam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Restraint of Trade	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Andre Francis Maniam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Summary Judgement	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Andre Francis Maniam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Contractual Interpretation	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Andre Francis Maniam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Rules of construction	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Andre Francis Maniam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Employers’ duties	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice35% relevance score	Andre Francis Maniam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Employees’ Duties	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	Andre Francis Maniam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Good Faith and Fidelity	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Andre Francis Maniam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Unlawful Interference	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Andre Francis Maniam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Fiduciary Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Andre Francis Maniam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Arbitration	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Andre Francis Maniam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Non-Solicitation Clause	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Andre Francis Maniam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Corporate Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice25% relevance score	Andre Francis Maniam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Misrepresentation	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Andre Francis Maniam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Fraud and Deceit	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Andre Francis Maniam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Inducement of Breach of Contract	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Andre Francis Maniam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Andre Francis Maniam has been affiliated with 2 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 3 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
WongPartnership LLP	3 cases	75% of cases	CDX v CDZ: Setting Aside Arbitral Award for Fraudulent Misrepresentation(Dec 2020) Leiman v Noble Resources: Contractual Terms, Implied Terms, and R&O Committee Discretion(May 2020) Leiman v. Noble Resources: Breach of Contract, Share Options & Fiduciary Duty(Jul 2018)
WongPartnership	1 cases	25% of cases	Man Financial v Wong: Breach of Non-Solicitation Clause & Restraint of Trade(Nov 2007)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Andre Francis Maniam's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 3.7
Complex Cases: 3 (75%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	14.0 parties avg	4.0	25%
Partial	14.0 parties avg	4.0	25%
Won	23.3 parties avg	3.3	50%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2007	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2018	14.0 parties avg	4.0
2020	24.0 parties avg	4.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Andre Francis Maniam's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	1(25%)	25%
Partial	1(25%)	25%
Won	2(50%)	50%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	0.00	0.002 cases	2

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2007	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2018	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2020	2 11	Partial: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 4 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	CDX v CDZ: Setting Aside Arbitral Award for Fraudulent Misrepresentation 01 Dec 2020 CDZ (Defendant)Won	01 Dec 2020	CDZ (Defendant): Judgment for DefendantThe application to set aside the arbitral award was dismissed.
2	Leiman v Noble Resources: Contractual Terms, Implied Terms, and R&O Committee Discretion 27 May 2020 Ricardo Leiman (Appellant, Plaintiff)Partial	27 May 2020	Ricardo Leiman (Appellant, Plaintiff): Appeal Allowed in PartAppeal allowed in part; damages to be assessed for wrongful denial of share options and shares. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
3	Leiman v. Noble Resources: Breach of Contract, Share Options & Fiduciary Duty 25 Jul 2018 Ricardo Leiman (Plaintiff)Lost	25 Jul 2018	Ricardo Leiman (Plaintiff): Claim DismissedThe plaintiff's claim was dismissed.
4	Man Financial v Wong: Breach of Non-Solicitation Clause & Restraint of Trade 28 Nov 2007 Man Financial (S) Pte Ltd (formerly known as E D & F Man International (S) Pte Ltd) (Appellant)Won	28 Nov 2007	Man Financial (S) Pte Ltd (formerly known as E D & F Man International (S) Pte Ltd) (Appellant): Appeal AllowedAppeal allowed with costs; the respondent was not entitled to the Compensation under the Termination Agreement.