Ho Chye Hoon

Ho Chye Hoon is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2016 to 2018. The lawyer has handled 3 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 1 law firm. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in building and construction contracts and construction law. Their track record shows a 67.0% success rate in resolved cases.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Ho Chye Hoon has demonstrated expertise across 12 primary practice areas, with significant experience in breach of contract and contract law.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Breach of Contract	3 cases	15% of total caseload	Experienced57% relevance score	Ho Chye Hoon has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 15% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	3 cases	15% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Ho Chye Hoon has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 15% of their total caseload.
Building and Construction Contracts	3 cases	15% of total caseload	Highly Specialized82% relevance score	Ho Chye Hoon has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 15% of their total caseload.
Construction Law	3 cases	15% of total caseload	Highly Specialized87% relevance score	Ho Chye Hoon has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 15% of their total caseload.
Sub-contracts	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Ho Chye Hoon has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Claims by sub-contractor	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Ho Chye Hoon has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Statutes and regulations	1 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Ho Chye Hoon has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Arbitration	1 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Ho Chye Hoon has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Design and build contract	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Ho Chye Hoon has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	1 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Ho Chye Hoon has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Lump sum contract	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Ho Chye Hoon has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Ho Chye Hoon 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

Ho Chye Hoon has been affiliated with 1 law firm. The most active affiliation involves 3 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
KEL LLC	3 cases	100% of cases	Civil Tech v Hua Rong: Security of Payment Act & Cross-Contract Set-Offs(Mar 2018) Hua Rong Engineering v Civil Tech: Security of Payment Act & Cross-Contract Set-Off(Jul 2017) Goh Eng Lee Andy v Yeo Jin Kow: Design and Build Contract Dispute(Jun 2016)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Ho Chye Hoon's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 2.0
Complex Cases: 0 (0%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	12.0 parties avg	2.0	33%
Won	22.0 parties avg	2.0	67%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2016	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2017	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2018	12.0 parties avg	2.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Ho Chye Hoon's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	1(33%)	33%
Won	2(67%)	67%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	0.00	0.003 cases	3

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2016	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2017	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2018	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 3 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Civil Tech v Hua Rong: Security of Payment Act & Cross-Contract Set-Offs 01 Mar 2018 Hua Rong Engineering Pte Ltd (Respondent)Won	01 Mar 2018	Hua Rong Engineering Pte Ltd (Respondent): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed; Civil Tech was not entitled to withhold payment based on claims arising under a separate construction contract. Costs awarded to the respondent fixed at $15,000 with disbursements of $400 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
2	Hua Rong Engineering v Civil Tech: Security of Payment Act & Cross-Contract Set-Off 23 Jul 2017 Hua Rong Engineering Pte Ltd (Plaintiff, Respondent)Won	23 Jul 2017	Hua Rong Engineering Pte Ltd (Plaintiff, Respondent): Application to set aside the adjudication determination dismissedThe Plaintiff's application to set aside the adjudication determination was dismissed. The currency is assumed to be SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
3	Goh Eng Lee Andy v Yeo Jin Kow: Design and Build Contract Dispute 01 Jun 2016 Yeo Jin Kow (Defendant)Lost	01 Jun 2016	Yeo Jin Kow (Defendant): Counterclaim DismissedDefendant's counterclaim dismissed, except for a small portion related to the Resident Technical Officer fee and gate installation, which was offset against the plaintiff's claims (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).