Fu Qijing

Fu Qijing is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2019 to 2024. The lawyer has handled 6 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 1 law firm. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in administrative law and statutory interpretation. Their track record shows a 50.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 3 complex cases, representing 50% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Fu Qijing has demonstrated expertise across 24 primary practice areas, with significant experience in administrative law and property law.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Administrative Law	3 cases	10% of total caseload	Highly Specialized78% relevance score	Fu Qijing has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 10% of their total caseload.
Property Law	2 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced66% relevance score	Fu Qijing has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Statutory Interpretation	2 cases	6% of total caseload	Highly Specialized88% relevance score	Fu Qijing has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Land Law	2 cases	6% of total caseload	Highly Specialized78% relevance score	Fu Qijing has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Criminal Law	2 cases	6% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Fu Qijing has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Constitutional Law	2 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Fu Qijing has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Evidence Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Fu Qijing has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Admission to the Bar	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Fu Qijing has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Voyeuristic Offences	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Fu Qijing has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Fu Qijing has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Judicial Review	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Fu Qijing has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Medical Registration Act	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Fu Qijing has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Online Falsehoods	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Fu Qijing has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Freedom of speech	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Fu Qijing has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Disciplinary Proceedings (Medical)	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Fu Qijing has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA)	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Fu Qijing has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Adverse Possession	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Fu Qijing has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Compulsory Acquisition	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Fu Qijing has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Compulsory Land Acquisition	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Fu Qijing has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Fu Qijing has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Communications and Media	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Fu Qijing has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Eminent Domain	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Fu Qijing has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Fu Qijing has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Medical Disciplinary Proceedings	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Fu Qijing has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Fu Qijing has been affiliated with 1 law firm. The most active affiliation involves 6 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Attorney-General’s Chambers	6 cases	100% of cases	Re Mohamad Shafee Khamis: Admission to the Bar, Sexual Offences, Public Trust(Oct 2024) Wee Teong Boo v Singapore Medical Council: Judicial Review of Disciplinary Tribunal's Evidentiary Decision(Jul 2022) The Online Citizen v Attorney-General: POFMA, Freedom of Speech & Constitutional Law(Oct 2021)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Fu Qijing's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 3.8
Complex Cases: 3 (50%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Neutral	13.0 parties avg	3.0	17%
Partial	24.7 parties avg	4.7	33%
Won	33.4 parties avg	3.4	50%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2019	15.0 parties avg	5.0
2020	23.5 parties avg	3.5
2021	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2022	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2024	14.0 parties avg	4.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Neutral	1(17%)	17%
Partial	2(33%)	33%
Won	3(50%)	50%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	0.00	0.002 cases	2

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2019	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)
2020	2 2	Won: 2 cases (100.0%)
2021	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2022	1 1	Neutral: 1 cases (100.0%)
2024	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 6 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Re Mohamad Shafee Khamis: Admission to the Bar, Sexual Offences, Public Trust 27 Oct 2024 Attorney-General (Respondent)Partial	27 Oct 2024	Attorney-General (Respondent): Objection partially successfulThe Attorney-General objected to the admission, and the court imposed a Minimum Exclusionary Period, though shorter than the requested four years.
2	Wee Teong Boo v Singapore Medical Council: Judicial Review of Disciplinary Tribunal's Evidentiary Decision 18 Jul 2022 Attorney-General (Intervener)Neutral	18 Jul 2022	Attorney-General (Intervener): Application DismissedThe application for leave to seek a quashing order against the Admissibility Decision was dismissed. (Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
3	The Online Citizen v Attorney-General: POFMA, Freedom of Speech & Constitutional Law 07 Oct 2021 Attorney-General (Respondent)Won	07 Oct 2021	Attorney-General (Respondent): Appeal DismissedThe court dismissed the appeal.
4	Ahmad Kasim v Singapore Land Authority: Judicial Review of Land Acquisition Compensation 03 May 2020 Attorney-General of the Republic of Singapore (Respondent)Won	03 May 2020	Attorney-General of the Republic of Singapore (Respondent): Judgment for RespondentThe application against the Attorney-General of the Republic of Singapore was dismissed.
5	Singapore Democratic Party v Attorney-General: POFMA, Statutory Interpretation, Online Falsehoods 04 Feb 2020 Attorney-General (Respondent)Won	04 Feb 2020	Attorney-General (Respondent): Judgment for RespondentThe court found in favor of the Attorney-General, upholding the Correction Directions. The currency is assumed to be SGD, the currency of Singapore.
6	Ahmad Kasim v Moona Esmail: Adverse Possession, Land Acquisition & Compensation 09 Apr 2019 Attorney-General (Respondent)Partial	09 Apr 2019	Attorney-General (Respondent): Appeal allowed in partThe court granted declarations that Mr. Adam adversely acquired title to the House (occupying an area of 405.5m2) in 1967 by virtue of his adverse possession and that all rights and title to the House held by the paper owners were extinguished in 1967.