Foo Say Tun

Foo Say Tun is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2001 to 2013. The lawyer has handled 11 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 3 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in company law and contempt of court. Their track record shows a 42.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 5 complex cases, representing 45% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Foo Say Tun has demonstrated expertise across 27 primary practice areas, with significant experience in civil procedure and contract law.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Civil Procedure	7 cases	14% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Foo Say Tun has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 7 cases which represents 14% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	5 cases	10% of total caseload	Experienced66% relevance score	Foo Say Tun has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 5 cases which represents 10% of their total caseload.
Evidence Law	4 cases	8% of total caseload	General Practice48% relevance score	Foo Say Tun has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 4 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Company Law	4 cases	8% of total caseload	Highly Specialized76% relevance score	Foo Say Tun has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Contempt of Court	3 cases	6% of total caseload	Highly Specialized87% relevance score	Foo Say Tun has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Commercial Disputes	3 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced54% relevance score	Foo Say Tun has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Director's Duties	2 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice44% relevance score	Foo Say Tun has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Minority Oppression	2 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized91% relevance score	Foo Say Tun has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Companies Act	2 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Foo Say Tun has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Estate Administration	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Foo Say Tun has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Frustration	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Foo Say Tun has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Res Judicata	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Foo Say Tun has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Estoppel	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Foo Say Tun has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Agency Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Foo Say Tun has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Trust Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Foo Say Tun has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Shareholders Rights	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Foo Say Tun has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Shareholders’ dispute	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Foo Say Tun has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Arbitration	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Foo Say Tun has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Distribution Agreement	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Foo Say Tun has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Foo Say Tun has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Commercial Leasing	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Foo Say Tun has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Corporate Governance	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Foo Say Tun has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Real Estate	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Foo Say Tun has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Shareholder Disputes	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Foo Say Tun has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Winding Up	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Foo Say Tun has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Gifts Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Foo Say Tun has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Fiduciary Duties	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Foo Say Tun has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Foo Say Tun has been affiliated with 3 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 5 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Wee, Tay & Lim LLP	5 cases	45% of cases	Aurol Anthony Sabastian v Sembcorp Marine Ltd: Contempt of Court & Interim Sealing Order Breach(Jan 2013) Sembcorp Marine Ltd v Aurol Anthony Sabastian: Contempt of Court & Sealing Order Breach(Sep 2012) Sembcorp Marine Ltd v Aurol Anthony Sabastian: Contempt of Court for Breaching Sealing Order(Mar 2012)
Wee Tay & Lim	5 cases	45% of cases	XFactor Consolidated v IT21: Dispute over Distribution Agreement and Joint Venture for Educational Software(May 2009) Singh Chiranjeev v Joseph Mathew: Specific Performance of Property Sale Agreement(Nov 2008) Lim Swee Khiang v Borden Co: Minority Shareholder Oppression & Company Act Remedies(Sep 2006)
Wee Tay and Lim	1 cases	9% of cases	Lim Swee Khiang v Borden Co: Minority Shareholder Oppression & Company Affairs(Jul 2005)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Foo Say Tun's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 7.7
Complex Cases: 5 (45%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Dismissed	16.0 parties avg	6.0	9%
Lost	58.4 parties avg	8.4	45%
Neutral	14.0 parties avg	4.0	9%
Won	57.6 parties avg	7.6	45%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2001	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2003	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2005	112.0 parties avg	12.0
2006	112.0 parties avg	12.0
2008	16.0 parties avg	6.0
2009	14.0 parties avg	4.0
2010	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2011	15.0 parties avg	5.0
2012	22.0 parties avg	2.0
2013	12.0 parties avg	2.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Dismissed	1(8%)	8%
Lost	5(42%)	42%
Neutral	1(8%)	8%
Won	5(42%)	42%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	10,000.00	1,428.577 cases	7

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2001	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2003	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2005	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2006	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2008	1 1	Dismissed: 1 cases (100.0%)
2009	2 11	Neutral: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2010	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2011	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2012	2 2	Lost: 2 cases (100.0%)
2013	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 11 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Aurol Anthony Sabastian v Sembcorp Marine Ltd: Contempt of Court & Interim Sealing Order Breach 16 Jan 2013 Aurol Anthony Sabastian (Appellant)Won	16 Jan 2013	Aurol Anthony Sabastian (Appellant): Appeal AllowedAppeal allowed, but no costs awarded to the appellant.
2	Sembcorp Marine Ltd v Aurol Anthony Sabastian: Contempt of Court & Sealing Order Breach 27 Sep 2012 Aurol Anthony Sabastian (Respondent)Lost	27 Sep 2012	Aurol Anthony Sabastian (Respondent): Respondent SentencedRespondent sentenced to 5 days imprisonment for contempt of court (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
3	Sembcorp Marine Ltd v Aurol Anthony Sabastian: Contempt of Court for Breaching Sealing Order 18 Mar 2012 Aurol Anthony Sabastian (Respondent)Lost	18 Mar 2012	Aurol Anthony Sabastian (Respondent): Respondent found guilty of contemptMr. Aurol was found guilty of contempt of court.
4	Chang Benety v Tang Kin Fei: Validation of Resolutions Passed at Inquorate Directors' Meetings 03 Nov 2011 Douglas Tan (Appellant)Won	03 Nov 2011	Douglas Tan (Appellant): Appeal AllowedAppeal allowed with costs.
5	Tang Kin Fei v Chang Benety: Validation of Board Resolutions Under Companies Act 28 Sep 2010 Anthony Sabastian Aurol (Defendant)Lost	28 Sep 2010	Anthony Sabastian Aurol (Defendant): Application dismissed in partApplication dismissed in part; ordered to pay costs of $5,000 to the plaintiffs (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
6	XFactor Consolidated v IT21: Dispute over Distribution Agreement and Joint Venture for Educational Software 19 May 2009 Tan Cheng Hua (Defendant)Won	19 May 2009	Tan Cheng Hua (Defendant): Claim DismissedPlaintiff's claim was dismissed. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
7	Singh Chiranjeev v Joseph Mathew: Specific Performance of Property Sale Agreement 27 Nov 2008 Dennis Wee Properties Pte Ltd (Defendant)Dismissed	27 Nov 2008	Dennis Wee Properties Pte Ltd (Defendant): Claim DismissedClaim against the fourth defendant dismissed; no submissions were made on the alternative claim against the third and fourth defendants. (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
8	Lim Swee Khiang v Borden Co: Minority Shareholder Oppression & Company Act Remedies 24 Sep 2006 Lim Kheng Puan (Respondent)Lost	24 Sep 2006	Lim Kheng Puan (Respondent): Shares to be purchased by respondentsThe court ordered the second to tenth respondents to purchase the appellants’ shares in Borden.
9	Lim Swee Khiang v Borden Co: Minority Shareholder Oppression & Company Affairs 31 Jul 2005 Yeo Yong Kian (Defendant)Won	31 Jul 2005	Yeo Yong Kian (Defendant): Judgment for DefendantJudgment in favor of the defendant with costs (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
10	HDB v Microform: Frustration of Contract Due to Lack of Access to Leased Land 21 Sep 2003 Housing & Development Board (a body incorporated under the Housing & Development Act) (Plaintiff)Won	21 Sep 2003	Housing & Development Board (a body incorporated under the Housing & Development Act) (Plaintiff): Judgment for PlaintiffJudgment for the Plaintiff, except prayers 4 and 5 of the statement of claim. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
11	Lee Hiok Tng v Lee Hiok Tng: Res Judicata & Gift of Shares Dispute 17 Apr 2001 Lee Hiok Tng (Appellant)Lost	17 Apr 2001	Lee Hiok Tng (Appellant): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed with costs to the 3rd to 5th respondents. The court found that the doctrine of res judicata applied to the reimbursement question, but not to the gift question. However, the court found the gift to be invalid on its merits. No monetary amount was specified.