Hema Subramaniam

Hema Subramaniam is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2000 to 2012. The lawyer has handled 5 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 1 law firm. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in administrative law and employment law. Their track record shows a 20.0% success rate in resolved cases.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Hema Subramaniam has demonstrated expertise across 13 primary practice areas, with significant experience in administrative law and constitutional law.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Administrative Law	5 cases	23% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Hema Subramaniam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 5 cases which represents 23% of their total caseload.
Constitutional Law	3 cases	14% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Hema Subramaniam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 14% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	3 cases	14% of total caseload	Experienced57% relevance score	Hema Subramaniam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 14% of their total caseload.
Employment Law	2 cases	9% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Hema Subramaniam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 9% of their total caseload.
Jurisdiction	1 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Hema Subramaniam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Costs	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Hema Subramaniam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Judicial Review	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Hema Subramaniam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Hema Subramaniam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Trade Marks Rules	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Hema Subramaniam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Public Service	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Hema Subramaniam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Hema Subramaniam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Property Law	1 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Hema Subramaniam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Trademarks	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Hema Subramaniam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Hema Subramaniam has been affiliated with 1 law firm. The most active affiliation involves 5 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Attorney-General’s Chambers	5 cases	100% of cases	Attorney-General v Vellama: Costs in Withdrawing Appeal for Judicial Review of Prime Minister's By-Election Discretion(Nov 2012) Vellama v Attorney-General: Application for Mandatory Order for By-Election in Hougang SMC(Apr 2012) Neel's Electronic Pte Ltd v Charles Jourdan Holding AG: Certiorari Application for Trade Mark Opposition Extension(Sep 2001)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Hema Subramaniam's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 2.2
Complex Cases: 0 (0%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	22.0 parties avg	2.0	40%
Neutral	13.0 parties avg	3.0	20%
Withdrawn	12.0 parties avg	2.0	20%
Won	12.0 parties avg	2.0	20%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2000	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2001	22.5 parties avg	2.5
2012	22.0 parties avg	2.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	2(40%)	40%
Neutral	1(20%)	20%
Withdrawn	1(20%)	20%
Won	1(20%)	20%

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2000	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2001	2 11	Neutral: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2012	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Withdrawn: 1 cases (50.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 5 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Attorney-General v Vellama: Costs in Withdrawing Appeal for Judicial Review of Prime Minister's By-Election Discretion 01 Nov 2012 Attorney-General (Appellant)Withdrawn	01 Nov 2012	Attorney-General (Appellant): Appeal WithdrawnThe Attorney-General withdrew the appeal against the Leave Order.
2	Vellama v Attorney-General: Application for Mandatory Order for By-Election in Hougang SMC 08 Apr 2012 Attorney-General (Respondent)Lost	08 Apr 2012	Attorney-General (Respondent): Appeal against leave unsuccessfulThe Attorney-General's appeal against the decision to grant leave was unsuccessful.
3	Neel's Electronic Pte Ltd v Charles Jourdan Holding AG: Certiorari Application for Trade Mark Opposition Extension 10 Sep 2001 Attorney-General (Other)Neutral	10 Sep 2001	Attorney-General (Other): NeutralThe Attorney-General's role was to assist the court. The outcome was neutral.
4	Public Service Commission v Lai Swee Lin Linda: Judicial Review & Public Law 28 Jan 2001 Public Service Commission (Appellant)Won	28 Jan 2001	Public Service Commission (Appellant): Appeal allowed.The Public Service Commission's appeal was allowed, setting aside the order below.
5	Linda Lai v Public Service Commission: Judicial Review of Probation Extension & Termination 06 Aug 2000 Public Service Commission (Respondent)Lost	06 Aug 2000	Public Service Commission (Respondent): Decisions quashedDecisions regarding extension of probation and termination of service were quashed.