Edmund Eng

Edmund Eng is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2003 to 2018. The lawyer has handled 5 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 2 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in negligence and jurisdiction. Their track record shows a 60.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 3 complex cases, representing 60% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Edmund Eng has demonstrated expertise across 33 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	10% of total caseload	General Practice42% relevance score	Edmund Eng has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 4 cases which represents 10% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	3 cases	8% of total caseload	Experienced67% relevance score	Edmund Eng has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Agency Law	2 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice33% relevance score	Edmund Eng has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Estoppel	2 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice25% relevance score	Edmund Eng has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Edmund Eng has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Corporate Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Edmund Eng has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Negligence	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Edmund Eng has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Pleadings	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Edmund Eng has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Property Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Edmund Eng has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Misrepresentation	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Edmund Eng has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Jurisdiction	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Edmund Eng has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Mental Capacity Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Edmund Eng has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Costs	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Edmund Eng has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Intention to create legal relations	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Edmund Eng has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Quantum meruit	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Edmund Eng has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Legal Profession Act	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Edmund Eng has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Edmund Eng 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	Experienced60% relevance score	Edmund Eng has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Evidence	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Edmund Eng has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Summary Judgement	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Edmund Eng has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Company Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Edmund Eng has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Fiduciary Duty	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Edmund Eng has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Repudiatory breach	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Edmund Eng has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Bill of costs	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Edmund Eng has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Compromise Agreement	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	Edmund Eng has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Taxation of Legal Costs	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Edmund Eng has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Oral agreements	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Edmund Eng has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Investment Advice	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Edmund Eng has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Edmund Eng has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Consultancy Agreement	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Edmund Eng has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Asset Recovery	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Edmund Eng has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Banking and Finance	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Edmund Eng has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Business Litigation	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Edmund Eng has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Edmund Eng has been affiliated with 2 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 3 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Allen and Gledhill	3 cases	60% of cases	Sumitomo v Salim: Applications to Adduce Further Evidence and File Single Case at Substantive Appeals(Sep 2004) Chia Ee Lin Evelyn v Teh Guek Ngor Engelin: Breach of Contract & Oral Agreements(Sep 2004) Grossner Jens v Raffles Holdings: Brokerage Contract Dispute over Swissotel Acquisition(Nov 2003)
Shook Lin & Bok LLP	2 cases	40% of cases	BLG v BLI: Review of Bill of Costs in Mental Capacity Act Application(Apr 2018) Koh Kim Teck v Credit Suisse: Breach of Duty in Investment Advice Claim(Feb 2015)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Edmund Eng's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 5.9
Complex Cases: 3 (60%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	15.0 parties avg	5.0	20%
Neutral	18.0 parties avg	8.0	20%
Won	33.0 parties avg	3.0	60%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2003	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2004	27.5 parties avg	7.5
2015	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2018	15.0 parties avg	5.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	1(20%)	20%
Neutral	1(20%)	20%
Won	3(60%)	60%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	408,986.82	204,493.412 cases	2

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2003	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2004	2 11	Neutral: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2015	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2018	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 5 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	BLG v BLI: Review of Bill of Costs in Mental Capacity Act Application 11 Apr 2018 BLH (Applicant)Lost	11 Apr 2018	BLH (Applicant): Summons dismissedThe applicants' summons for the first and second respondents to produce documents setting out a breakdown of the total number of hours spent by each of their lawyers was dismissed.
2	Koh Kim Teck v Credit Suisse: Breach of Duty in Investment Advice Claim 25 Feb 2015 Koh Kim Teck (Plaintiff, Respondent)Won	25 Feb 2015	Koh Kim Teck (Plaintiff, Respondent): Appeal DismissedThe Plaintiff's claim was not struck out, and the Defendant's appeal was dismissed.
3	Sumitomo v Salim: Applications to Adduce Further Evidence and File Single Case at Substantive Appeals 02 Sep 2004 Dresdner Bank Aktiengesellschaft (Respondent)Neutral	02 Sep 2004	Dresdner Bank Aktiengesellschaft (Respondent): Application adjournedThe court ruled that it had no jurisdiction to hear the applications for the adduction of fresh evidence and directed that they be adjourned to be heard before the full Court of Appeal.
4	Chia Ee Lin Evelyn v Teh Guek Ngor Engelin: Breach of Contract & Oral Agreements 01 Sep 2004 Chia Ee Lin Evelyn (Plaintiff)Won	01 Sep 2004	Chia Ee Lin Evelyn (Plaintiff): Judgment for PlaintiffJudgment for the plaintiff on her claims, as verified later. The amount owing to the plaintiff is $408,986.82. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
5	Grossner Jens v Raffles Holdings: Brokerage Contract Dispute over Swissotel Acquisition 27 Nov 2003 Raffles Holdings Ltd (Defendant)Won	27 Nov 2003	Raffles Holdings Ltd (Defendant): Judgment for DefendantJudgment in favour of the defendant; the plaintiff's claim was dismissed with costs. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.