Basil Lee

Basil Lee is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2018 to 2018. The lawyer has handled 3 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 1 law firm. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in patents and misrepresentation. Their track record shows a 25.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 2 complex cases, representing 67% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Basil Lee has demonstrated expertise across 12 primary practice areas, with significant experience in civil procedure and breach of contract.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Civil Procedure	2 cases	14% of total caseload	Experienced66% relevance score	Basil Lee has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 14% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	2 cases	14% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Basil Lee has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 14% of their total caseload.
Intellectual Property Law	1 cases	7% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Basil Lee has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Patents	1 cases	7% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Basil Lee has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Fiduciary Duties	1 cases	7% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Basil Lee has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Misrepresentation	1 cases	7% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Basil Lee has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Unjust Enrichment	1 cases	7% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Basil Lee has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Costs	1 cases	7% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Basil Lee has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	1 cases	7% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Basil Lee has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Inventorship	1 cases	7% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Basil Lee has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Patent Entitlement	1 cases	7% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Basil Lee has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	1 cases	7% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Basil Lee has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Basil Lee has been affiliated with 1 law firm. The most active affiliation involves 3 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Lee & Lee	3 cases	100% of cases	Cicada Cube Pte Ltd v National University Hospital: Patent Ownership Dispute(Aug 2018) Long Well Group v Commerzbank: Costs Dispute After Breach of Contract Claim(Jul 2018) Long Well Group v Commerzbank: Breach of Contract, Misrepresentation & Fiduciary Duty Claims(Mar 2018)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Basil Lee's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 7.3
Complex Cases: 2 (67%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Dismissed	18.0 parties avg	8.0	33%
Neutral	12.0 parties avg	2.0	33%
Partial	18.0 parties avg	8.0	33%
Won	18.0 parties avg	8.0	33%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2018	37.3 parties avg	7.3

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Basil Lee's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Dismissed	1(25%)	25%
Neutral	1(25%)	25%
Partial	1(25%)	25%
Won	1(25%)	25%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	800,000.00	400,000.002 cases	2
USD	18,018,000.00	18,018,000.001 cases	1

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2018	4 1111	Dismissed: 1 cases (25.0%) Neutral: 1 cases (25.0%) Partial: 1 cases (25.0%) Won: 1 cases (25.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 3 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Cicada Cube Pte Ltd v National University Hospital: Patent Ownership Dispute 27 Aug 2018 National University Hospital (Singapore) Pte Ltd (Respondent, Appellant)Neutral	27 Aug 2018	National University Hospital (Singapore) Pte Ltd (Respondent, Appellant): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed; National University Hospital remains a joint proprietor of the patent. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
2	Long Well Group v Commerzbank: Costs Dispute After Breach of Contract Claim 22 Jul 2018 First Power International Limited (Plaintiff)Won	22 Jul 2018	First Power International Limited (Plaintiff): Costs awarded against 3rd defendantCosts to be paid by the 3rd defendant to the plaintiffs fixed at $200,000 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
3	Long Well Group v Commerzbank: Breach of Contract, Misrepresentation & Fiduciary Duty Claims 15 Mar 2018 First Power International Limited (Plaintiff)Dismissed	15 Mar 2018	First Power International Limited (Plaintiff): Claim dismissedThe other sums claimed for, such as the PEPL Share Purchase Sum and PEPL Advance Payments have not been shown to be losses incurred by the plaintiffs as a result of CAMA and CAB’s failure to transfer the ownership of CAE to the plaintiffs.