Gopalakrishnan Dinagaran

Gopalakrishnan Dinagaran is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2001 to 2022. The lawyer has handled 5 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 3 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in contract law and criminal law. Their track record shows a 60.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 1 complex case, representing 20% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Gopalakrishnan Dinagaran has demonstrated expertise across 33 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and property law.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	2 cases	6% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Gopalakrishnan Dinagaran has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Property Law	2 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced66% relevance score	Gopalakrishnan Dinagaran has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Civil Litigation	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Gopalakrishnan Dinagaran has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Gopalakrishnan Dinagaran has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Contracts	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Gopalakrishnan Dinagaran has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Criminal Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Gopalakrishnan Dinagaran has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Employment Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Gopalakrishnan Dinagaran has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Family Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Gopalakrishnan Dinagaran has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Landlord and Tenant Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Gopalakrishnan Dinagaran has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Obstructing the Course of Justice	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Gopalakrishnan Dinagaran has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Obstruction of Justice	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Gopalakrishnan Dinagaran has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Parol Evidence Rule	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Gopalakrishnan Dinagaran has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Theft	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Gopalakrishnan Dinagaran has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Torts	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Gopalakrishnan Dinagaran has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Care and Control	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Gopalakrishnan Dinagaran has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Measure of Damages	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Gopalakrishnan Dinagaran has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Contractual terms	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Gopalakrishnan Dinagaran has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Sentencing	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Gopalakrishnan Dinagaran has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Criminal Procedure	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Gopalakrishnan Dinagaran has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Penalties	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Gopalakrishnan Dinagaran has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Tenancy Agreement	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Gopalakrishnan Dinagaran has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Offences	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Gopalakrishnan Dinagaran 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	General Practice40% relevance score	Gopalakrishnan Dinagaran has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Judgments and Orders	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Gopalakrishnan Dinagaran has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Children's Welfare	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Gopalakrishnan Dinagaran has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Mentally disordered offenders	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Gopalakrishnan Dinagaran has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Interest in land	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Gopalakrishnan Dinagaran has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Conspiracy	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Gopalakrishnan Dinagaran has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Tenancy in Common	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Gopalakrishnan Dinagaran has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Trespass	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Gopalakrishnan Dinagaran has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Gopalakrishnan Dinagaran has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Public Order Offences	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Gopalakrishnan Dinagaran has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Child Custody	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Gopalakrishnan Dinagaran has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Gopalakrishnan Dinagaran has been affiliated with 3 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 3 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Prestige Legal LLP	3 cases	60% of cases	Kelington Engineering v Gan Cheng Chuan: Parol Evidence Rule & Liquidated Damages(Apr 2022) Goh Rosaline v Goh Nellie: Trespass, Conspiracy & Land Rights Dispute(Jun 2021) Prince Restaurant v Kosma Holdings: Breach of Tenancy Agreement Dispute(Oct 2017)
Thomas Tham Dinagaran & Co	1 cases	20% of cases	AAV v AAW: Child Custody Dispute - Best Interests of Child & Parental Discipline(Jul 2009)
Thomas Tham & Co	1 cases	20% of cases	Tan Ngin Hai v PP: Preventive Detention for Theft by Persistent Offender(May 2001)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Gopalakrishnan Dinagaran's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 4.1
Complex Cases: 1 (20%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	22.0 parties avg	2.0	40%
Won	35.0 parties avg	5.0	60%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2001	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2009	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2017	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2021	17.0 parties avg	7.0
2022	12.0 parties avg	2.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	2(40%)	40%
Won	3(60%)	60%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	192,000.00	64,000.003 cases	3

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2001	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2009	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2017	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2021	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2022	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 5 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Kelington Engineering v Gan Cheng Chuan: Parol Evidence Rule & Liquidated Damages 25 Apr 2022 Gan Cheng Chuan (Defendant)Won	25 Apr 2022	Gan Cheng Chuan (Defendant): Judgment for DefendantJudgment in favor of the Defendant. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
2	Goh Rosaline v Goh Nellie: Trespass, Conspiracy & Land Rights Dispute 27 Jun 2021 Goh Boon Mei, Joanie (Wu Wenmei, Joanie) (Defendant)Won	27 Jun 2021	Goh Boon Mei, Joanie (Wu Wenmei, Joanie) (Defendant): Judgment in favor of DefendantJudgment in favor of the sixth defendant, Goh Boon Mei, Joanie. Costs fixed at $60,000, as well as reasonable disbursements to be fixed by me if not agreed. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
3	Prince Restaurant v Kosma Holdings: Breach of Tenancy Agreement Dispute 03 Oct 2017 Prince Restaurant Pte Ltd (Appellant)Lost	03 Oct 2017	Prince Restaurant Pte Ltd (Appellant): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed with costs to the respondent fixed at $12,000 (inclusive of disbursements). Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
4	AAV v AAW: Child Custody Dispute - Best Interests of Child & Parental Discipline 30 Jul 2009 AAW (Defendant, Respondent)Won	30 Jul 2009	AAW (Defendant, Respondent): Care and control grantedCare and control of the child was granted to AAW.
5	Tan Ngin Hai v PP: Preventive Detention for Theft by Persistent Offender 31 May 2001 Tan Ngin Hai (Appellant)Lost	31 May 2001	Tan Ngin Hai (Appellant): Appeal DismissedAppeal against sentence of eight years' preventive detention was dismissed.