Edric Pan

Edric Pan is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2000 to 2012. The lawyer has handled 13 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 4 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in misrepresentation and construction law. Their track record shows a 79.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 5 complex cases, representing 38% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Edric Pan has demonstrated expertise across 54 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and company law.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	10 cases	11% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 10 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.
Company Law	5 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced69% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 5 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	4 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice31% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 4 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	3 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced74% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Fraud and Deceit	3 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced61% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Misrepresentation	3 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Fiduciary Duties	3 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Trust Law	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced66% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Lifting corporate veil	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Construction Law	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Evidence	2 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Damages	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced69% relevance score	Edric Pan 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 Practice35% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced63% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Costs	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced68% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Measure of Damages	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced69% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Estoppel	2 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Personal Injury	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized83% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Sale of Land	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Agency Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Medical Negligence	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Specific performance	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Tenancy Agreements	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice25% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Shareholders Rights	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Performance of Contract	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Building and Construction Related Contracts	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Guarantees and indemnities	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice25% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP)	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Medical Examination	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Medical Reports	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Special Purpose Vehicle	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Commingling of bank accounts	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Best Endeavours Clause	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Network Leasing Agreement	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Change of Use	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Arbitration	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Building Sub-Contract	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Banking and Finance	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Corporate Governance	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Family Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Property Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Torts	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice25% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Wrongful Death	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Performance Bond	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Unconscionability	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Edric Pan 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	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Commercial Disputes	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Evidence Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Edric Pan 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	Experienced70% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Natural forum	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Damages Assessment	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Nominee Director	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Formation of contract	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
International Commercial Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Edric Pan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Edric Pan has been affiliated with 4 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 6 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Rajah & Tann	6 cases	46% of cases	Group Exklusiv v Diethelm: Land Sale Dispute over NEA Approval for Change of Use(Oct 2003) Kwee Seng Chio Peter v Biogenics Sdn Bhd: Loan Agreement Dispute & Director's Authority(Dec 2002) Tapematic SpA v Wirana Pte Ltd: Agency Law & Misrepresentation in Letter of Credit Transaction(Jan 2002)
Rodyk & Davidson	4 cases	31% of cases	Children's Media Ltd v Singapore Tourism Board: Fraudulent Misrepresentation & Lifting the Corporate Veil(Nov 2008) Hanson v Tan: Dependency Claim Assessment After Fatal Accident(Nov 2007) Singapore Telecommunications Ltd v Starhub Cable Vision Ltd: Extension of Time for Filing Affidavits(Jul 2007)
Rodyk & Davidson LLP	2 cases	15% of cases	Law Chin Eng v Lau Chin Hu: Striking Out Claim for Breach of Fiduciary Duty to Company(Oct 2008) Singapore Tourism Board v Children's Media Ltd: Fraudulent Misrepresentation & Corporate Veil Piercing(May 2008)
Independent Practitioner	1 cases	8% of cases	BBN v Low Eu Hong: Negligence Claim for Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP) & Medical Examination Dispute(Jun 2012)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Edric Pan's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 4.8
Complex Cases: 5 (38%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	17.0 parties avg	7.0	8%
Neutral	13.0 parties avg	3.0	8%
Partial	14.0 parties avg	4.0	8%
Won	114.9 parties avg	4.9	85%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2000	23.0 parties avg	3.0
2001	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2002	22.5 parties avg	2.5
2003	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2006	112.0 parties avg	12.0
2007	23.5 parties avg	3.5
2008	36.0 parties avg	6.0
2012	12.0 parties avg	2.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	1(7%)	7%
Neutral	1(7%)	7%
Partial	1(7%)	7%
Won	11(79%)	79%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
AUD	518,032.89	518,032.891 cases	1
MYR	8,361,285.01	8,361,285.011 cases	1
SGD	9,397,733.65	1,044,192.639 cases	9

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2000	2 11	Neutral: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2001	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2002	2 2	Won: 2 cases (100.0%)
2003	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2006	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2007	2 11	Partial: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2008	4 13	Lost: 1 cases (25.0%) Won: 3 cases (75.0%)
2012	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 13 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	BBN v Low Eu Hong: Negligence Claim for Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP) & Medical Examination Dispute 27 Jun 2012 Low Eu Hong (trading as EH Low Baby N' Child Clinic) (Defendant)Won	27 Jun 2012	Low Eu Hong (trading as EH Low Baby N' Child Clinic) (Defendant): Application DismissedDefendant's application for a stay of proceedings until the plaintiff completed psychological, ENT, and language assessments was dismissed. (Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
2	Children's Media Ltd v Singapore Tourism Board: Fraudulent Misrepresentation & Lifting the Corporate Veil 13 Nov 2008 Singapore Tourism Board (Respondent)Won	13 Nov 2008	Singapore Tourism Board (Respondent): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed; the appellants are liable to refund $6,155,250 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
3	Law Chin Eng v Lau Chin Hu: Striking Out Claim for Breach of Fiduciary Duty to Company 29 Oct 2008 Hiap Seng & Co Pte Ltd (Defendant)Won	29 Oct 2008	Hiap Seng & Co Pte Ltd (Defendant): Successful in striking out claimDefendants' application to strike out paragraphs 22 to 28 and prayer 12 of the Statement of Claim was granted.
4	Singapore Tourism Board v Children's Media Ltd: Fraudulent Misrepresentation & Corporate Veil Piercing 26 May 2008 Singapore Tourism Board (Plaintiff)Won	26 May 2008	Singapore Tourism Board (Plaintiff): Judgment for PlaintiffInterlocutory judgment awarded to the plaintiff; damages to be assessed. The currency is assumed to be SGD, the currency of the jurisdiction.
5	Hanson v Tan: Dependency Claim Assessment After Fatal Accident 27 Nov 2007 Eu Zai Feng Elliot (Plaintiff)Partial	27 Nov 2007	Eu Zai Feng Elliot (Plaintiff): Appeal Allowed in PartDependency claim allowed in part; awarded A$518,032.89.
6	Singapore Telecommunications Ltd v Starhub Cable Vision Ltd: Extension of Time for Filing Affidavits 19 Jul 2007 Starhub Cable Vision Ltd (formerly known as Singapore Cable Vision Ltd) (Defendant)Won	19 Jul 2007	Starhub Cable Vision Ltd (formerly known as Singapore Cable Vision Ltd) (Defendant): Orders made for filing affidavits and seeking input from IDAThe court made orders for the plaintiff to file affidavits and for both parties to seek input from the Info-communications Development Authority of Singapore (IDA).
7	Lim Swee Khiang v Borden Co: Minority Shareholder Oppression & Company Act Remedies 24 Sep 2006 C H Lim Pte Ltd (Appellant)Won	24 Sep 2006	C H Lim Pte Ltd (Appellant): Appeal AllowedAppeal allowed. The court found the respondents had acted in disregard of the appellants' interests as minority shareholders.
8	Group Exklusiv v Diethelm: Land Sale Dispute over NEA Approval for Change of Use 20 Oct 2003 Group Exklusiv Pte Ltd (Plaintiff)Won	20 Oct 2003	Group Exklusiv Pte Ltd (Plaintiff): Judgment for PlaintiffJudgment for the Plaintiff; recovery of deposit of $1,000,000 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
9	Kwee Seng Chio Peter v Biogenics Sdn Bhd: Loan Agreement Dispute & Director's Authority 10 Dec 2002 Kwee Seng Chio Peter (Plaintiff)Won	10 Dec 2002	Kwee Seng Chio Peter (Plaintiff): Judgment for PlaintiffJudgment for the Plaintiff for the principal sum of RM7 million with costs together with interest of RM1,361,285.01 as at 18th October 2002 and thereafter interest to continue at the contractual rate of 8.5% per annum until date of payment. Assumed MYR as the judgment concerns a Malaysian company and the loan was in RM.
10	Tapematic SpA v Wirana Pte Ltd: Agency Law & Misrepresentation in Letter of Credit Transaction 08 Jan 2002 Wirana Pte Ltd (Defendant, Respondent)Won	08 Jan 2002	Wirana Pte Ltd (Defendant, Respondent): Application to Strike Out GrantedApplication to strike out parts of the Amended Statement of Claim granted (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
11	Asia-Pacific Ventures II Ltd v PT Intimutiara Gasindo: Forum Non Conveniens & Stay of Proceedings 21 Jun 2001 Asia-Pacific Ventures II Ltd (Plaintiff, Respondent)Won	21 Jun 2001	Asia-Pacific Ventures II Ltd (Plaintiff, Respondent): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed in favour of the plaintiff. No monetary amount specified.
12	New Civilbuild v Guobena: Costs Allocation After Judgment on Progress Payments and Liquidated Damages 23 Mar 2000 The Tai Ping Insurance Co Ltd (Defendant)Neutral	23 Mar 2000	The Tai Ping Insurance Co Ltd (Defendant): NeutralTai Ping's counterclaim against Guobena failed. The currency is assumed to be SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
13	New Civilbuild v Guobena: Res Judicata, Performance Bonds & Building Sub-Contracts 28 Feb 2000 The Tai Ping Insurance Co Ltd (Defendant)Won	28 Feb 2000	The Tai Ping Insurance Co Ltd (Defendant): Judgment in FavourJudgment in favour of Tai Ping against New Civilbuild in the sum of $1,642,045 plus interest of $49,412 and costs of $3,000 together with interest at 6% per annum on the total sum of $1,694,457.10 from 16 July 1998 (date of payment of the judgment sum in Suit 57/98 to Guobena) until payment. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.