Bazul Ashhab

Bazul Ashhab is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2002 to 2024. The lawyer has handled 16 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 5 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in shipping law and admiralty and maritime law. Their track record shows a 33.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 4 complex cases, representing 25% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated expertise across 61 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and breach of contract.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	14 cases	11% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 14 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	9 cases	7% of total caseload	Experienced63% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 9 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Shipping Law	8 cases	7% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 8 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Arbitration	6 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced54% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 6 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Admiralty and Maritime Law	5 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized87% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 5 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	5 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 5 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Bills of Lading Act	5 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized92% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 5 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Commercial Law	4 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 4 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Jurisdiction	4 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced52% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Evidence	3 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice38% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Negligence	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Costs	2 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice44% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Personal Injury	2 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Guarantee	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Commercial Disputes	2 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice38% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Estoppel	2 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice27% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Summary Judgement	2 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice33% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Recourse against award	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized93% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Setting aside	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Restitution	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Failure of consideration	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Stay of Proceedings	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Agency Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Judgments and Orders	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Lifting corporate veil	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Switch Bills of Lading	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Company Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Peremptory orders	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Shipping Disputes	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Bills of Lading	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Conduct of Arbitration	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Misdelivery	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Case Management Stay	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Time-Bar	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Limitation of Liability	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Pre-contractual deposits	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Default Judgment	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Towage Agreement	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Marine Construction	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Title to Sue	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Lawful Holder	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Order Bills of Lading	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Wrongful Delivery of Cargo	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Document of Title	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Appellate Practice	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Banking and Finance	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Collections	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Commercial Fraud	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Letters of Credit	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Property Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Insolvency Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Performance Bond	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Fraud and Deceit	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Conspiracy by Unlawful Means	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Evidence Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
International Commercial Arbitration	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Construction	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Assignment Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Natural justice	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Anti-suit injunction	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Bazul Ashhab has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Bazul Ashhab has been affiliated with 5 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 8 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Oon & Bazul LLP	8 cases	50% of cases	TA Private Capital v UD Trading: Guarantee, Performance Bond & Striking Out Defences(Jan 2024) TA Private Capital v UD Trading: Striking Out Defenses in Guarantee Claim(Jan 2023) UD Trading Group v TA Private Capital: Leave to Appeal Stay of Proceedings(Feb 2022)
T S Oon and Bazul	4 cases	25% of cases	UCO Bank v Golden Shore Transportation: Title to Sue on Bills of Lading under Bills of Lading Act(Sep 2005) Antara Koh v Eng Tou: Limitation of Liability for Shipowner under Merchant Shipping Act(Sep 2005) UCO Bank v Golden Shore Transportation: Title to Sue Under Bills of Lading Act(Apr 2005)
T S Oon & Bazul	2 cases	13% of cases	UCO Bank v Golden Shore Transportation: Title to Sue Under Bills of Lading Act(Aug 2004) M-Power v Goodway: Setting Aside Default Judgment for Misdelivered Cargo Claim(Aug 2003)
Independent Practitioner	1 cases	6% of cases	JVL Agro Industries Ltd v Agritrade International Pte Ltd: Setting Aside Arbitration Award for Breach of Natural Justice(Jul 2016)
Joseph Tan Jude Benny	1 cases	6% of cases	Marina Tanker v Chan Fook Choon: Negligence Claim for Ship Engine Repair(Apr 2002)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Bazul Ashhab's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 3.0
Complex Cases: 4 (25%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Dismissed	14.0 parties avg	4.0	6%
Lost	102.5 parties avg	2.5	63%
Partial	12.0 parties avg	2.0	6%
Won	63.5 parties avg	3.5	38%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2002	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2003	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2004	22.0 parties avg	2.0
2005	32.0 parties avg	2.0
2015	24.0 parties avg	4.0
2016	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2017	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2021	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2022	22.7 parties avg	2.7
2023	14.0 parties avg	4.0
2024	14.0 parties avg	4.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Dismissed	1(6%)	6%
Lost	10(56%)	56%
Partial	1(6%)	6%
Won	6(33%)	33%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	21,069.00	2,633.638 cases	8
USD	253,207,613.32	84,402,537.773 cases	3

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2002	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2003	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2004	2 2	Lost: 2 cases (100.0%)
2005	3 21	Lost: 2 cases (66.7%) Won: 1 cases (33.3%)
2015	4 121	Dismissed: 1 cases (25.0%) Lost: 2 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (25.0%)
2016	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2017	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)
2021	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2022	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2023	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2024	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 16 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	TA Private Capital v UD Trading: Guarantee, Performance Bond & Striking Out Defences 30 Jan 2024 TransAsia Private Capital Limited (Plaintiff)Won	30 Jan 2024	TransAsia Private Capital Limited (Plaintiff): Judgment for PlaintiffJudgment entered against the first defendant for US$63.3m with interest and costs.
2	TA Private Capital v UD Trading: Striking Out Defenses in Guarantee Claim 29 Jan 2023 TransAsia Private Capital Limited (Plaintiff)Won	29 Jan 2023	TransAsia Private Capital Limited (Plaintiff): Judgment for PlaintiffJudgment for the Plaintiff in the amount of USD 63,303,806.66 (assumed USD, as the judgment specifies the amount in USD).
3	UD Trading Group v TA Private Capital: Leave to Appeal Stay of Proceedings 02 Feb 2022 TA Private Capital Security Agent Limited (Respondent)Won	02 Feb 2022	TA Private Capital Security Agent Limited (Respondent): WonApplication for leave to appeal dismissed; UDTG to pay costs of SGD 8,000 to the respondents. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
4	Sai Wan Shipping v Landmark Line: Setting Aside Arbitration Award for Breach of Natural Justice 13 Jan 2022 Landmark Line Co, Ltd (Defendant)Lost	13 Jan 2022	Landmark Line Co, Ltd (Defendant): Appeal DismissedThe court set aside the arbitration award against the defendant.
5	Batavia EXIMP v Owner of Vessels: Stay of Proceedings & Time-Bar Waiver in Admiralty Dispute 30 May 2021 Batavia EXIMP & Contracting (S) Pte Ltd (Appellant)Lost	30 May 2021	Batavia EXIMP & Contracting (S) Pte Ltd (Appellant): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed; Batavia to pay costs of the appeals fixed at $5,000 inclusive of disbursements. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
6	Jiacipto Jiaravanon v Simpson Marine: Restitution for Failure of Consideration and Contract Breach in Yacht Purchase 21 Nov 2017 Simpson Marine (SEA) Pte Ltd (Defendant)Partial	21 Nov 2017	Simpson Marine (SEA) Pte Ltd (Defendant): Counterclaims Allowed in PartDefendant's counterclaims for the insurance, maintenance and medical costs allowed. Awarded S$69.00 in respect of the medical costs. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
7	JVL Agro Industries Ltd v Agritrade International Pte Ltd: Setting Aside Arbitration Award for Breach of Natural Justice 12 Jul 2016 AGRITRADE INTERNATIONAL PTE LTD (Defendant, Respondent)Lost	12 Jul 2016	AGRITRADE INTERNATIONAL PTE LTD (Defendant, Respondent): Application DeniedAward set aside; Agritrade to pay JVL's costs (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
8	Gimpex Ltd v Unity Holdings: Breach of Contract & Conspiracy Claim in Coal Sale Dispute 26 Mar 2015 Vinay Parmanad Hariani (Respondent)Won	26 Mar 2015	Vinay Parmanad Hariani (Respondent): WonCosts awarded in defending against Gimpex’s conspiracy and piercing of the corporate veil claims. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
9	Gimpex Ltd v Unity Holdings: Breach of Contract, Coal Quality Dispute 08 Feb 2015 Vinay Parmanad Hariani (Respondent)Dismissed	08 Feb 2015	Vinay Parmanad Hariani (Respondent): Claims dismissedClaims against Vinay Parmanad Hariani were dismissed.
10	UCO Bank v Golden Shore Transportation: Title to Sue on Bills of Lading under Bills of Lading Act 13 Sep 2005 UCO Bank (Appellant)Won	13 Sep 2005	UCO Bank (Appellant): Appeal AllowedThe appeal was allowed, restoring the action for further hearing.
11	Antara Koh v Eng Tou: Limitation of Liability for Shipowner under Merchant Shipping Act 04 Sep 2005 Antara Koh Pte Ltd (Plaintiff)Lost	04 Sep 2005	Antara Koh Pte Ltd (Plaintiff): Limitation action dismissedThe court dismissed Antara Koh's limitation action. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
12	UCO Bank v Golden Shore Transportation: Title to Sue Under Bills of Lading Act 04 Apr 2005 UCO Bank (Plaintiff, Appellant)Lost	04 Apr 2005	UCO Bank (Plaintiff, Appellant): Appeal dismissedThe appeal was dismissed with costs.
13	The Hyundai Fortune: Stay of Proceedings and Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause Dispute 08 Sep 2004 Hyundai Fortune (Appellant)Lost	08 Sep 2004	Hyundai Fortune (Appellant): Appeal DismissedThe appeal against the decision to refuse a stay of proceedings was dismissed.
14	UCO Bank v Golden Shore Transportation: Title to Sue Under Bills of Lading Act 24 Aug 2004 UCO Bank (Plaintiff)Lost	24 Aug 2004	UCO Bank (Plaintiff): Claim DismissedUCO Bank's application for summary judgment was dismissed, and their action was struck out due to lack of title to sue.
15	M-Power v Goodway: Setting Aside Default Judgment for Misdelivered Cargo Claim 28 Aug 2003 M-Power Development Pte Ltd (Appellant, Plaintiff)Lost	28 Aug 2003	M-Power Development Pte Ltd (Appellant, Plaintiff): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed with costs. The judgment does not specify a currency, so SGD is assumed as the jurisdiction is Singapore.
16	Marina Tanker v Chan Fook Choon: Negligence Claim for Ship Engine Repair 04 Apr 2002 Marina Tanker Sdn Bhd (Plaintiff)Won	04 Apr 2002	Marina Tanker Sdn Bhd (Plaintiff): Judgment for PlaintiffJudgment for the plaintiff against the defendants as regards liability and costs. The judgment does not specify a currency, so the currency of the jurisdiction (Singapore) is assumed.