Chandrayogan Yogarajah

Chandrayogan Yogarajah is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2011 to 2011. The lawyer has handled 1 case in Singapore's courts. Associated with 1 law firm. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in misrepresentation and rescission.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Chandrayogan Yogarajah has demonstrated expertise across 9 primary practice areas, with significant experience in arbitration and breach of contract.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Arbitration	1 cases	11% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Chandrayogan Yogarajah has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	1 cases	11% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Chandrayogan Yogarajah has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.
Corporate Litigation	1 cases	11% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Chandrayogan Yogarajah has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.
Misrepresentation	1 cases	11% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Chandrayogan Yogarajah has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.
Abuse of Process	1 cases	11% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Chandrayogan Yogarajah has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.
Estoppel	1 cases	11% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Chandrayogan Yogarajah has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.
Rescission	1 cases	11% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Chandrayogan Yogarajah has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	1 cases	11% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Chandrayogan Yogarajah has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.
Company Law	1 cases	11% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Chandrayogan Yogarajah has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Chandrayogan Yogarajah has been affiliated with 1 law firm. The most active affiliation involves 1 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Island Law LLC	1 cases	100% of cases	Subramaniam v Pandiyan: Rescission of Settlement Agreement Based on Misrepresentation Claim(Apr 2011)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Chandrayogan Yogarajah's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 3.0
Complex Cases: 0 (0%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	13.0 parties avg	3.0	100%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2011	13.0 parties avg	3.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	1(100%)	100%

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2011	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 1 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Subramaniam v Pandiyan: Rescission of Settlement Agreement Based on Misrepresentation Claim 27 Apr 2011 Vasandamallar Mrs Subramaniam (Plaintiff, Respondent)Lost	27 Apr 2011	Vasandamallar Mrs Subramaniam (Plaintiff, Respondent): Appeal DismissedThe appeal against the decision to strike out the statement of claim was dismissed.