Daniel Tay

Daniel Tay is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2009 to 2023. The lawyer has handled 10 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 5 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in performance bond and unconscionability. Their track record shows a 36.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 3 complex cases, representing 30% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Daniel Tay has demonstrated expertise across 44 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and injunctions.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	9 cases	11% of total caseload	General Practice49% relevance score	Daniel Tay has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 9 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.
Injunctions	5 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced59% relevance score	Daniel Tay has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 5 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Arbitration	4 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced66% relevance score	Daniel Tay has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Company Law	4 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced57% relevance score	Daniel Tay has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	3 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced58% relevance score	Daniel Tay has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	3 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice44% relevance score	Daniel Tay has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Construction Law	3 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced62% relevance score	Daniel Tay has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Performance Bond	3 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Daniel Tay has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Commercial Disputes	3 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice38% relevance score	Daniel Tay has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Fraud and Deceit	3 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Daniel Tay has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Corporate Law	2 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice28% relevance score	Daniel Tay has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Fiduciary Duties	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced73% relevance score	Daniel Tay has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Inducement of Breach of Contract	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Daniel Tay has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Unconscionability	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Daniel Tay has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Bankruptcy	2 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice38% relevance score	Daniel Tay has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Misrepresentation	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced67% relevance score	Daniel Tay has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Summary Judgement	2 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice23% relevance score	Daniel Tay has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Revenue Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice15% relevance score	Daniel Tay has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Costs	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Daniel Tay has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Waiver	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Daniel Tay has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Statutory Demand	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Daniel Tay has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Evidence	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Daniel Tay has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Without Prejudice Privilege	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Daniel Tay has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Adjudication Determination	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Daniel Tay has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Privilege	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Daniel Tay has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Tax Evasion	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Daniel Tay has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Subpoenas	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Daniel Tay has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Minority Shareholders Rights	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Daniel Tay has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Building and Construction Contracts	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Daniel Tay has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Civil Litigation	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Daniel Tay 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	Experienced70% relevance score	Daniel Tay has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Corporate Litigation	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Daniel Tay has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Intellectual Property Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Daniel Tay has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Unfair Competition	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Daniel Tay has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Minority Oppression	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Daniel Tay has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Breach of Confidence	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Daniel Tay 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	Experienced65% relevance score	Daniel Tay 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	Experienced60% relevance score	Daniel Tay has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Jurisdiction	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Daniel Tay has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
International Commercial Arbitration	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Daniel Tay has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Construction	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Daniel Tay has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Contractual terms	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Daniel Tay has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Natural justice	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Daniel Tay has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Damages Assessment	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Daniel Tay has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Daniel Tay has been affiliated with 5 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 3 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Bernard & Rada Law Corporation	3 cases	30% of cases	Lau Chin Eng v Lau Chin Hu: Family Dispute over Company Assets and "Without Prejudice" Privilege(Sep 2009) Law Chin Eng v Hiap Seng & Co: Derivative Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty(Sep 2009) Inphosoft Pte Ltd v Ho Jin Kiat: Copyright Infringement & Search Order Dispute(Jun 2009)
Rodyk & Davidson LLP	3 cases	30% of cases	ARS v ART: Tortious Interference, Breach of Contract, and Conspiracy in CCTV Supply Dispute(Apr 2015) CCM Industrial v 70 Shenton: Performance Bond & Unconscionability in Construction Contract Termination(Apr 2014) BS Mount Sophia v Join-Aim: Interim Injunction & Unconscionable Call on Performance Bond(May 2012)
Chan Neo LLP	2 cases	20% of cases	Wan Sern Metal Industries v Hua Tian Engineering: Stay of Adjudication Enforcement(Feb 2023) CDX v CDZ: Setting Aside Arbitral Award for Fraudulent Misrepresentation(Dec 2020)
MPillay	1 cases	10% of cases	ALC v ALF: Revocation of Subpoena in Arbitration Proceedings(Aug 2010)
MPillay Advocates & Solicitors	1 cases	10% of cases	United Fiber System v China National Machinery: Performance Bond Dispute(Jan 2011)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Daniel Tay's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 4.5
Complex Cases: 3 (30%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	43.0 parties avg	3.0	40%
Neutral	16.0 parties avg	6.0	10%
Partial	24.5 parties avg	4.5	20%
Won	45.3 parties avg	5.3	40%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2009	36.3 parties avg	6.3
2010	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2011	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2012	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2014	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2015	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2020	14.0 parties avg	4.0
2023	12.0 parties avg	2.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	4(36%)	36%
Neutral	1(9%)	9%
Partial	2(18%)	18%
Won	4(36%)	36%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	8,000.00	1,333.336 cases	6

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2009	4 121	Neutral: 1 cases (25.0%) Partial: 2 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (25.0%)
2010	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2011	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2012	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2014	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2015	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2020	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2023	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 10 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Wan Sern Metal Industries v Hua Tian Engineering: Stay of Adjudication Enforcement 26 Feb 2023 Hua Tian Engineering Pte Ltd (Respondent)Won	26 Feb 2023	Hua Tian Engineering Pte Ltd (Respondent): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed; costs awarded to the respondent in the amount of $8,000 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
2	CDX v CDZ: Setting Aside Arbitral Award for Fraudulent Misrepresentation 01 Dec 2020 CDY (Plaintiff)Lost	01 Dec 2020	CDY (Plaintiff): Application dismissedPlaintiffs' application to set aside the arbitral award was dismissed with costs.
3	ARS v ART: Tortious Interference, Breach of Contract, and Conspiracy in CCTV Supply Dispute 07 Apr 2015 ARS (Plaintiff)Lost	07 Apr 2015	ARS (Plaintiff): Claims dismissedAll claims made by the plaintiff were dismissed. (Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
4	CCM Industrial v 70 Shenton: Performance Bond & Unconscionability in Construction Contract Termination 15 Apr 2014 70 Shenton Pte Ltd (Defendant)Won	15 Apr 2014	70 Shenton Pte Ltd (Defendant): Successful in resisting injunctionSuccessfully resisted CCM's application for an interim injunction to restrain them from receiving payment under the performance bond. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
5	BS Mount Sophia v Join-Aim: Interim Injunction & Unconscionable Call on Performance Bond 08 May 2012 BS Mount Sophia Pte Ltd (Appellant)Lost	08 May 2012	BS Mount Sophia Pte Ltd (Appellant): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed with costs. The court found a strong prima facie case of unconscionability justifying the continuance of the injunction restraining the Appellant’s call on the Bond pending arbitration. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
6	United Fiber System v China National Machinery: Performance Bond Dispute 27 Jan 2011 China National Machinery & Equipment Import & Export Corporation (Defendant)Won	27 Jan 2011	China National Machinery & Equipment Import & Export Corporation (Defendant): Judgment for DefendantThe court found in favor of the defendant, upholding the validity of the statutory demand.
7	ALC v ALF: Revocation of Subpoena in Arbitration Proceedings 10 Aug 2010 ALF (Defendant)Lost	10 Aug 2010	ALF (Defendant): Application dismissedDefendant's request for the subpoena was dismissed. The currency is assumed to be SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
8	Lau Chin Eng v Lau Chin Hu: Family Dispute over Company Assets and "Without Prejudice" Privilege 30 Sep 2009 Winstant Holding Pte Ltd (Defendant)Won	30 Sep 2009	Winstant Holding Pte Ltd (Defendant): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed against the defendant. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
9	Law Chin Eng v Hiap Seng & Co: Derivative Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty 29 Sep 2009 Lew Kiat Beng (Respondent)Partial	29 Sep 2009	Lew Kiat Beng (Respondent): Partial LossLeave granted to bring action against him on some complaints.
10	Inphosoft Pte Ltd v Ho Jin Kiat: Copyright Infringement & Search Order Dispute 29 Jun 2009 Inphosoft Pte Ltd (Plaintiff)Partial	29 Jun 2009	Inphosoft Pte Ltd (Plaintiff): Interim Injunction GrantedInterim injunction granted to the plaintiff.