Bajwa Ragbir Singh

Bajwa Ragbir Singh is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2010 to 2011. The lawyer has handled 2 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 1 law firm. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in legal ethics and professional responsibility and assessment of legal costs.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Bajwa Ragbir Singh has demonstrated expertise across 6 primary practice areas, with significant experience in legal ethics and professional responsibility and assessment of legal costs.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility	2 cases	22% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Bajwa Ragbir Singh has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 22% of their total caseload.
Assessment of Legal Costs	2 cases	22% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Bajwa Ragbir Singh has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 22% of their total caseload.
Costs	2 cases	22% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Bajwa Ragbir Singh has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 22% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	1 cases	11% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Bajwa Ragbir Singh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.
Legal Profession Act	1 cases	11% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Bajwa Ragbir Singh has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	1 cases	11% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Bajwa Ragbir Singh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Bajwa Ragbir Singh has been affiliated with 1 law firm. The most active affiliation involves 2 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Bajwa & Co	2 cases	100% of cases	Law Society v Top Ten: Review of Disciplinary Proceedings & Costs Allocation(Apr 2011) Top Ten Entertainment v Law Society: Judicial Review of Disciplinary Decision(Aug 2010)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Bajwa Ragbir Singh's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 2.0
Complex Cases: 0 (0%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Partial	22.0 parties avg	2.0	100%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2010	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2011	12.0 parties avg	2.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Bajwa Ragbir Singh's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Partial	2(100%)	100%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	0.00	0.002 cases	2

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2010	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)
2011	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 2 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Law Society v Top Ten: Review of Disciplinary Proceedings & Costs Allocation 06 Apr 2011 Top Ten Entertainment Pte Ltd (Respondent)Partial	06 Apr 2011	Top Ten Entertainment Pte Ltd (Respondent): Costs Order UpheldCosts order of 50% in their favour upheld, but no further costs awarded for the appeal. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
2	Top Ten Entertainment v Law Society: Judicial Review of Disciplinary Decision 30 Aug 2010 Top Ten Entertainment Pte Ltd (Plaintiff)Partial	30 Aug 2010	Top Ten Entertainment Pte Ltd (Plaintiff): Partial SuccessThe court affirmed the Inquiry Committee’s finding that there was no agreement on fees between the plaintiff and Mr Arul, but directed the Law Society to apply to the Chief Justice for the appointment of a Disciplinary Tribunal to look into two matters. The court also ordered the Law Society to pay 50% of the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings. (Currency assumed to be SGD, the currency of Singapore).