Brij Raj Rai

Brij Raj Rai is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2000 to 2005. The lawyer has handled 5 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 2 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in shipping law and admiralty and maritime law. Their track record shows a 40.0% success rate in resolved cases.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Brij Raj Rai has demonstrated expertise across 18 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and shipping law.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	4 cases	14% of total caseload	Experienced54% relevance score	Brij Raj Rai has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 14% of their total caseload.
Shipping Law	4 cases	14% of total caseload	Highly Specialized77% relevance score	Brij Raj Rai has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 14% of their total caseload.
Admiralty and Maritime Law	3 cases	10% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Brij Raj Rai has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 10% of their total caseload.
Marine Insurance	2 cases	7% of total caseload	Highly Specialized93% relevance score	Brij Raj Rai has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Insurance	2 cases	7% of total caseload	Highly Specialized82% relevance score	Brij Raj Rai has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Personal Injury	2 cases	7% of total caseload	General Practice35% relevance score	Brij Raj Rai has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Estoppel	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Brij Raj Rai has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Carriage of goods by sea	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Brij Raj Rai has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Judgments and Orders	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Brij Raj Rai has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Limitation of Liability	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Brij Raj Rai has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Piracy	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Brij Raj Rai has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Towage Agreement	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Brij Raj Rai has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Marine Construction	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Brij Raj Rai has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Automobile Accidents	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Brij Raj Rai has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Brij Raj Rai has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Negligence	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Brij Raj Rai has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Insolvency Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Brij Raj Rai has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Jurisdiction	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Brij Raj Rai has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Brij Raj Rai has been affiliated with 2 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 4 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Just Law LLC	4 cases	80% of cases	Bayswater Carriers v QBE Insurance: Marine Insurance, Piracy & Violent Theft Claim(Sep 2005) Antara Koh v Eng Tou: Limitation of Liability for Shipowner under Merchant Shipping Act(Sep 2005) Skading Anne v Yeo Kian Seng: Transfer of Action from Magistrate's Court to District Court for Personal Injury Claim(Mar 2005)
Rajah & Tann	1 cases	20% of cases	Everbright v AXA: Marine Insurance, 'Approved Vessel' & Phantom Ships(Jun 2000)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Brij Raj Rai's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 2.3
Complex Cases: 0 (0%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	32.5 parties avg	2.5	60%
Won	22.0 parties avg	2.0	40%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2000	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2004	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2005	32.0 parties avg	2.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Brij Raj Rai's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	3(60%)	60%
Won	2(40%)	40%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	730,000.00	182,500.004 cases	4

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2000	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2004	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2005	3 12	Lost: 1 cases (33.3%) Won: 2 cases (66.7%)

Case History

Displaying all 5 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Bayswater Carriers v QBE Insurance: Marine Insurance, Piracy & Violent Theft Claim 28 Sep 2005 Bayswater Carriers Pte Ltd (Plaintiff)Won	28 Sep 2005	Bayswater Carriers Pte Ltd (Plaintiff): Judgment for PlaintiffJudgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $730,000 with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the Writ of Summons and costs. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
2	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.
3	Skading Anne v Yeo Kian Seng: Transfer of Action from Magistrate's Court to District Court for Personal Injury Claim 07 Mar 2005 Yeo Kian Seng (Defendant, Respondent)Won	07 Mar 2005	Yeo Kian Seng (Defendant, Respondent): Appeal AllowedThe defendant's appeal against the decision to transfer the proceedings to the District Court was allowed.
4	Pan United Shipping v Cendrawasih Shipping: Liability for Lost Cargo & Demise Charter 22 Feb 2004 Cendrawasih Shipping Pte Ltd (Defendant)Lost	22 Feb 2004	Cendrawasih Shipping Pte Ltd (Defendant): Claim DismissedClaim dismissed against the Defendant (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
5	Everbright v AXA: Marine Insurance, 'Approved Vessel' & Phantom Ships 27 Jun 2000 The HongKong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd (Plaintiff)Lost	27 Jun 2000	The HongKong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd (Plaintiff): Claim DismissedThe plaintiff's claim for insurance coverage was dismissed.