Hema Subramanian

Hema Subramanian is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2001 to 2010. The lawyer has handled 5 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 2 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in contempt of court and ad hoc admission. Their track record shows a 60.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 2 complex cases, representing 40% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Hema Subramanian has demonstrated expertise across 23 primary practice areas, with significant experience in civil procedure and contempt of court.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Civil Procedure	3 cases	9% of total caseload	General Practice38% relevance score	Hema Subramanian has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 9% of their total caseload.
Contempt of Court	3 cases	9% of total caseload	Highly Specialized93% relevance score	Hema Subramanian has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 9% of their total caseload.
Constitutional Law	3 cases	9% of total caseload	Experienced52% relevance score	Hema Subramanian has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 9% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	2 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced63% relevance score	Hema Subramanian has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Criminal Law	2 cases	6% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Hema Subramanian has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Defamation	2 cases	6% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Hema Subramanian has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Judicial Review	2 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Hema Subramanian has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Freedom of speech	2 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced53% relevance score	Hema Subramanian has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Ad Hoc Admission	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Hema Subramanian 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	Experienced50% relevance score	Hema Subramanian has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Unjust Enrichment	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Hema Subramanian has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Fiduciary Duties	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Hema Subramanian has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Costs	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Hema Subramanian has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Restitution	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Hema Subramanian has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Legal Profession Act	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Hema Subramanian has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Civil Litigation	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Hema Subramanian has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Fair Criticism	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Hema Subramanian has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Scandalising the court	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Hema Subramanian has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Evidence	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Hema Subramanian has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Hema Subramanian has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Misrepresentation	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Hema Subramanian has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Patient Confidentiality	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Hema Subramanian has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Evidence Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Hema Subramanian has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Hema Subramanian has been affiliated with 2 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 4 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Attorney-General’s Chambers	4 cases	80% of cases	Attorney-General v Shadrake Alan: Contempt of Court for Scandalising the Judiciary(Nov 2010) Attorney-General v Shadrake Alan: Contempt of Court, Scandalizing the Judiciary(Nov 2010) Attorney-General v Hertzberg Daniel: Contempt of Court & Freedom of Speech(Nov 2008)
State Counsel	1 cases	20% of cases	SingTel v IDA: Ad Hoc Admission of Queen's Counsel in Restitution Claim for Mistake of Law(Jul 2002)

Case Complexity Analysis

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

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 3.0
Complex Cases: 2 (40%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Neutral	15.0 parties avg	5.0	20%
Partial	12.0 parties avg	2.0	20%
Won	32.7 parties avg	2.7	60%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2001	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2002	15.0 parties avg	5.0
2008	14.0 parties avg	4.0
2010	22.0 parties avg	2.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Neutral	1(20%)	20%
Partial	1(20%)	20%
Won	3(60%)	60%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	80,000.00	26,666.673 cases	3

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2001	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)
2002	1 1	Neutral: 1 cases (100.0%)
2008	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2010	2 2	Won: 2 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 5 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Attorney-General v Shadrake Alan: Contempt of Court for Scandalising the Judiciary 15 Nov 2010 Attorney-General (Applicant)Won	15 Nov 2010	Attorney-General (Applicant): Judgment for ApplicantCosts fixed at $55,000 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
2	Attorney-General v Shadrake Alan: Contempt of Court, Scandalizing the Judiciary 02 Nov 2010 Attorney-General (Applicant)Won	02 Nov 2010	Attorney-General (Applicant): Judgment for ApplicantMr. Shadrake found guilty of the offence of contempt by scandalising the court and convicted accordingly.
3	Attorney-General v Hertzberg Daniel: Contempt of Court & Freedom of Speech 24 Nov 2008 Attorney-General (Applicant)Won	24 Nov 2008	Attorney-General (Applicant): Orders of committal for contempt granted against the third respondentOrders of committal for contempt granted against the third respondent, Dow Jones Publishing Company (Asia) Inc. Fine of $25,000 to be paid within 7 days. (Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
4	SingTel v IDA: Ad Hoc Admission of Queen's Counsel in Restitution Claim for Mistake of Law 07 Jul 2002 Attorney-General (Other)Neutral	07 Jul 2002	Attorney-General (Other): NeutralThe Attorney-General left the matter to the court.
5	Public Service Commission v Linda Lai: Judicial Review & Costs 11 Feb 2001 Public Service Commission (Appellant)Partial	11 Feb 2001	Public Service Commission (Appellant): Appeal allowed in partAppellant awarded 50% of the costs of the appeal and below. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.