Dinagaran

Dinagaran is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2002 to 2002. The lawyer has handled 1 case in Singapore's courts. Associated with 1 law firm. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in misrepresentation and agency law.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Dinagaran has demonstrated expertise across 5 primary practice areas, with significant experience in civil practice and misrepresentation.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Civil Practice	1 cases	20% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Dinagaran has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 20% of their total caseload.
Misrepresentation	1 cases	20% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Dinagaran has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 20% of their total caseload.
Agency Law	1 cases	20% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Dinagaran has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 20% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	1 cases	20% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Dinagaran has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 20% of their total caseload.
Summary Judgement	1 cases	20% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Dinagaran has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 20% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

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

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Thomas Tham & Co	1 cases	100% of cases	Tapematic SpA v Wirana Pte Ltd: Agency Law & Misrepresentation in Letter of Credit Transaction(Jan 2002)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Dinagaran'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
Neutral	13.0 parties avg	3.0	100%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2002	13.0 parties avg	3.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

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

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	0.00	0.001 cases	1

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2002	1 1	Neutral: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 1 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Tapematic SpA v Wirana Pte Ltd: Agency Law & Misrepresentation in Letter of Credit Transaction 08 Jan 2002 Umar Zen (Defendant)Neutral	08 Jan 2002	Umar Zen (Defendant): UnknownOutcome for Umar Zen is not explicitly stated in this extract (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).