Bryan Tan

Bryan Tan is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2002 to 2024. The lawyer has handled 6 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 4 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in bills of lading act and admiralty and maritime law. Their track record shows a 33.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 2 complex cases, representing 33% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Bryan Tan has demonstrated expertise across 37 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and breach of contract.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	4 cases	9% of total caseload	Experienced66% relevance score	Bryan Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 9% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	3 cases	7% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Bryan Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Bills of Lading Act	2 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized93% relevance score	Bryan Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Arbitration	2 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Bryan Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Jurisdiction	2 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Bryan Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Admiralty and Maritime Law	2 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Bryan Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Commercial Litigation	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Bryan Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Corporate Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Bryan Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Corporate Litigation	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Bryan Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Litigation	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Bryan Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Trade Finance	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	Bryan Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Insolvency Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Bryan Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Winding Up	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Bryan Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Restructuring and Dissolution	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Bryan Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Fiduciary Duties	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Bryan Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Commercial Disputes	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Bryan Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Fraud and Deceit	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Bryan Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Shipping Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Bryan Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Letter of Credit Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Bryan Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Garnishee Proceedings	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Bryan Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Estoppel	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Bryan Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Agency Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice25% relevance score	Bryan Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Conversion	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Bryan Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Companies Act	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Bryan Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Guarantee	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Bryan Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Company Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Bryan Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Interpretation of contractual terms	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Bryan Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Bank Guarantee	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Bryan Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Letters of Indemnity	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Bryan Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Joinder of Parties	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Bryan Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Shareholders Agreements	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Bryan Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Corporate Governance Disputes	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	Bryan Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Banking and Finance	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Bryan Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Business Formation	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Bryan Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Civil Litigation	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Bryan Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Bryan Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Commercial Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Bryan Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Bryan Tan has been affiliated with 4 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 2 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Drew & Napier LLC	2 cases	33% of cases	APL Co Pte Ltd v Voss Peer: Straight Bills of Lading & Delivery Obligations(Oct 2002) Voss Peer v APL Co Pte Ltd: Carrier's Delivery Obligation & Bill of Lading(Apr 2002)
PK Wong & Nair LLC	2 cases	33% of cases	JTrust Asia v Group Lease Holdings: Winding Up Application for Inability to Pay Debts(Jul 2024) Crédit Agricole v PPT Energy: Letter of Credit, Fraud, & Indemnity Dispute(Oct 2023)
Advocatus Law LLP	1 cases	17% of cases	Actis Excalibur Ltd v KS Distribution Pte Ltd: Intervention in Derivative Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duties(Oct 2016)
Nair & Co LLC	1 cases	17% of cases	BTY v BUA: Stay of Litigation & Arbitration Agreement Scope(Oct 2018)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Bryan Tan's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 3.8
Complex Cases: 2 (33%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	12.0 parties avg	2.0	17%
Neutral	25.5 parties avg	5.5	33%
Partial	12.0 parties avg	2.0	17%
Won	22.0 parties avg	2.0	33%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2002	22.0 parties avg	2.0
2016	16.0 parties avg	6.0
2018	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2023	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2024	14.0 parties avg	4.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	1(17%)	17%
Neutral	2(33%)	33%
Partial	1(17%)	17%
Won	2(33%)	33%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	0.00	0.005 cases	5
USD	10,319,470.81	10,319,470.811 cases	1

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2002	2 2	Won: 2 cases (100.0%)
2016	1 1	Neutral: 1 cases (100.0%)
2018	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2023	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)
2024	1 1	Neutral: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 6 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	JTrust Asia v Group Lease Holdings: Winding Up Application for Inability to Pay Debts 25 Jul 2024 Cosimo Borrelli (Non-party)Neutral	25 Jul 2024	Cosimo Borrelli (Non-party): Appointment as liquidatorMr Borrelli was appointed as GLH’s liquidator. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
2	Crédit Agricole v PPT Energy: Letter of Credit, Fraud, & Indemnity Dispute 23 Oct 2023 Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Singapore Branch (Appellant, Plaintiff)Partial	23 Oct 2023	Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Singapore Branch (Appellant, Plaintiff): Appeal allowed in partJudgment in favor of Crédit Agricole in the sum of $10,319,470.81 (assumed USD, as the judgment involves US dollar amounts and international trade).
3	BTY v BUA: Stay of Litigation & Arbitration Agreement Scope 14 Oct 2018 BUA (Defendant, Appellant)Lost	14 Oct 2018	BUA (Defendant, Appellant): Application DismissedThe defendant's application for a stay of litigation was dismissed. The court ordered the Company to pay the plaintiff’s costs fixed at $18,000 including disbursements and costs of the sealing application fixed at $500 including disbursements. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
4	Actis Excalibur Ltd v KS Distribution Pte Ltd: Intervention in Derivative Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duties 30 Oct 2016 SSH Corporation Ltd (Defendant)Neutral	30 Oct 2016	SSH Corporation Ltd (Defendant): No specific outcomeNo specific outcome for this party. Currency assumed to be SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
5	APL Co Pte Ltd v Voss Peer: Straight Bills of Lading & Delivery Obligations 02 Oct 2002 Voss Peer (Respondent)Won	02 Oct 2002	Voss Peer (Respondent): Judgment for RespondentJudgment for the respondent with costs. (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
6	Voss Peer v APL Co Pte Ltd: Carrier's Delivery Obligation & Bill of Lading 22 Apr 2002 Voss Peer (Plaintiff, Respondent)Won	22 Apr 2002	Voss Peer (Plaintiff, Respondent): Judgment for PlaintiffJudgment for the plaintiff; the amount of DM60,100.00 was converted to its Singapore dollar equivalent (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).