Francis Wu Wenbang

Francis Wu Wenbang is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2018 to 2018. The lawyer has handled 1 case in Singapore's courts. Associated with 1 law firm. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in insolvency law. They have managed 1 complex case, representing 100% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Francis Wu Wenbang has demonstrated expertise across 6 primary practice areas, with significant experience in property law and insolvency law.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Property Law	1 cases	17% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Francis Wu Wenbang has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 17% of their total caseload.
Insolvency Law	1 cases	17% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Francis Wu Wenbang has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 17% of their total caseload.
Sale of Land	1 cases	17% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Francis Wu Wenbang has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 17% of their total caseload.
Avoidance of transfer	1 cases	17% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Francis Wu Wenbang has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 17% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	1 cases	17% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Francis Wu Wenbang has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 17% of their total caseload.
Company Law	1 cases	17% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Francis Wu Wenbang has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 17% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Francis Wu Wenbang has been affiliated with 1 law firm. The most active affiliation involves 1 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP	1 cases	100% of cases	Carpe Diem Holdings v Carpe Diem Playskool: Insolvency, Avoidance of Transactions & Land Sale(Feb 2018)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Francis Wu Wenbang's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 5.0
Complex Cases: 1 (100%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	15.0 parties avg	5.0	100%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2018	15.0 parties avg	5.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

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

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	10,000.00	10,000.001 cases	1

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2018	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 1 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Carpe Diem Holdings v Carpe Diem Playskool: Insolvency, Avoidance of Transactions & Land Sale 20 Feb 2018 Carpe Diem Holdings Pte Ltd (Plaintiff)Lost	20 Feb 2018	Carpe Diem Holdings Pte Ltd (Plaintiff): Application DismissedOriginating Summons dismissed with costs to the fourth defendant fixed at $10,000 and reasonable disbursements. I made no order as to costs as regard the first defendant and the second defendant. Specifically, leave was not granted to proceed against either the first defendant or the second defendant. It follows that the questions sought to be determined under s 310 of the Act need not be conclusively answered. That said, I have, in the course of my grounds, taken the view that the assignment the Lease was not wrongful. Accordingly, those questions might very well have been answered in substance. Consequently, prayers 3 and 4, which sought a reversal of the transfer of the Lease or damages for loss of profit in lieu, were also not granted given that the assignment of the Lease was not wrongful in the first place. The proper recourse for the plaintiff lay in lodging a proof of debt for contractual damages in the liquidation of the first defendant. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.