Beverly Wee

Beverly Wee is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2005 to 2014. The lawyer has handled 2 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 2 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in cpf nomination and insolvency law. They have managed 2 complex cases, representing 100% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Beverly Wee has demonstrated expertise across 12 primary practice areas, with significant experience in administrative law and cpf nomination.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Administrative Law	1 cases	8% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Beverly Wee has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
CPF Nomination	1 cases	8% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Beverly Wee has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Wills and Probate	1 cases	8% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Beverly Wee has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Insolvency Law	1 cases	8% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Beverly Wee has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Winding Up	1 cases	8% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Beverly Wee has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Foreign Law	1 cases	8% of total caseload	General Practice25% relevance score	Beverly Wee has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Trust Law	1 cases	8% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Beverly Wee has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	1 cases	8% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Beverly Wee has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	1 cases	8% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Beverly Wee has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Company Law	1 cases	8% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Beverly Wee has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Succession Law	1 cases	8% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Beverly Wee has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Central Provident Fund Law	1 cases	8% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Beverly Wee has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Beverly Wee has been affiliated with 2 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 1 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Official Receiver's Office	1 cases	50% of cases	Beluga Chartering GmbH v Beluga Projects: Cross-Border Insolvency, s377(3)(c) Companies Act(Feb 2014)
Insolvency and Public Trustee's Office	1 cases	50% of cases	Chai Choon Yong v Central Provident Fund Board: Validity of CPF Nomination & Interpretation of 'Written Law'(Mar 2005)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Beverly Wee's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 5.3
Complex Cases: 2 (100%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	16.0 parties avg	6.0	50%
Neutral	14.0 parties avg	4.0	50%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2005	14.0 parties avg	4.0
2014	16.0 parties avg	6.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	1(50%)	50%
Neutral	1(50%)	50%

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2005	1 1	Neutral: 1 cases (100.0%)
2014	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 2 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Beluga Chartering GmbH v Beluga Projects: Cross-Border Insolvency, s377(3)(c) Companies Act 25 Feb 2014 Beluga Chartering Asia Pte Ltd (Respondent)Lost	25 Feb 2014	Beluga Chartering Asia Pte Ltd (Respondent): Appeal DismissedThe court allowed the appeal and directed that the Singapore Liquidators of Beluga Chartering were at liberty to remit the company’s assets in Singapore to the German Liquidator subject to any deductions authorised or required under the Act, notwithstanding the existence of the Singapore Subsidiaries’ unsatisfied judgment debt.
2	Chai Choon Yong v Central Provident Fund Board: Validity of CPF Nomination & Interpretation of 'Written Law' 27 Mar 2005 The Public Trustee (Respondent)Neutral	27 Mar 2005	The Public Trustee (Respondent): Judgment in favor of respondentThe court found in favor of the Public Trustee, upholding the validity of the nomination.