Andy Lem Jit Min

Andy Lem Jit Min is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2015 to 2021. The lawyer has handled 3 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 1 law firm. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in misrepresentation and trust law. Their track record shows a 67.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 1 complex case, representing 33% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Andy Lem Jit Min has demonstrated expertise across 23 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and estoppel.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	3 cases	11% of total caseload	General Practice37% relevance score	Andy Lem Jit Min has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.
Estoppel	2 cases	7% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Andy Lem Jit Min has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	2 cases	7% of total caseload	General Practice25% relevance score	Andy Lem Jit Min has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Damages	2 cases	7% of total caseload	General Practice38% relevance score	Andy Lem Jit Min has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Civil Litigation	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Andy Lem Jit Min has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Corporate Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Andy Lem Jit Min has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Property Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Andy Lem Jit Min has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Fiduciary Duties	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Andy Lem Jit Min has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Commercial Disputes	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice15% relevance score	Andy Lem Jit Min has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Misrepresentation	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Andy Lem Jit Min has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Fraud and Deceit	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Andy Lem Jit Min has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Conspiracy by Unlawful Means	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Andy Lem Jit Min has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Limitation	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Andy Lem Jit Min has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Breach of Trust	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Andy Lem Jit Min has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Trust Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Andy Lem Jit Min has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Company Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Andy Lem Jit Min has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Appeal	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Andy Lem Jit Min has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Shareholders Disputes	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Andy Lem Jit Min has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Arbitration	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Andy Lem Jit Min has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Tax Evasion	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Andy Lem Jit Min has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Andy Lem Jit Min has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Business Litigation	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Andy Lem Jit Min has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Chancery and Equity	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Andy Lem Jit Min has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Andy Lem Jit Min has been affiliated with 1 law firm. The most active affiliation involves 3 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Harry Elias Partnership LLP	3 cases	100% of cases	Song Jianbo v Sunmax Global Capital: Misrepresentation & Breach of Contract in GIP Investment(Sep 2021) Chng Weng Wah v Goh Bak Heng: Laches & Trustee's Duty to Account for Shares(Feb 2016) Tanaka Lumber v Datuk Tufail: Trust, Fiduciary Duty & Conspiracy in Timber Trading Dispute(Oct 2015)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Andy Lem Jit Min's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 3.0
Complex Cases: 1 (33%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Dismissed	14.0 parties avg	4.0	33%
Won	22.5 parties avg	2.5	67%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2015	14.0 parties avg	4.0
2016	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2021	13.0 parties avg	3.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Andy Lem Jit Min's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Dismissed	1(33%)	33%
Won	2(67%)	67%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	1,237,500.00	618,750.002 cases	2

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2015	1 1	Dismissed: 1 cases (100.0%)
2016	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2021	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 3 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Song Jianbo v Sunmax Global Capital: Misrepresentation & Breach of Contract in GIP Investment 22 Sep 2021 Song Jianbo (Plaintiff)Won	22 Sep 2021	Song Jianbo (Plaintiff): Judgment for PlaintiffJudgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,237,500 with interest. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
2	Chng Weng Wah v Goh Bak Heng: Laches & Trustee's Duty to Account for Shares 15 Feb 2016 Chng Weng Wah (Appellant, Defendant)Won	15 Feb 2016	Chng Weng Wah (Appellant, Defendant): Appeal AllowedAppeal allowed with costs. Assumed SGD as the jurisdiction is Singapore.
3	Tanaka Lumber v Datuk Tufail: Trust, Fiduciary Duty & Conspiracy in Timber Trading Dispute 22 Oct 2015 Datuk Haji Mohammad Tufail bin Mahmud (Defendant)Dismissed	22 Oct 2015	Datuk Haji Mohammad Tufail bin Mahmud (Defendant): Counterclaim DismissedDatuk Tufail's counterclaim was dismissed because he failed to discharge his burden of proof.