Jamal Siddique

Jamal Siddique is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2016 to 2024. The lawyer has handled 4 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 1 law firm. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in schemes of arrangement and insolvency law. Their track record shows a 40.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 2 complex cases, representing 50% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Jamal Siddique has demonstrated expertise across 15 primary practice areas, with significant experience in commercial disputes and schemes of arrangement.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Commercial Disputes	3 cases	13% of total caseload	Experienced59% relevance score	Jamal Siddique has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 13% of their total caseload.
Schemes of Arrangement	3 cases	13% of total caseload	Highly Specialized88% relevance score	Jamal Siddique has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 13% of their total caseload.
Company Law	2 cases	8% of total caseload	Experienced73% relevance score	Jamal Siddique has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Bankruptcy	2 cases	8% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	Jamal Siddique has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Insolvency Law	2 cases	8% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Jamal Siddique has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	2 cases	8% of total caseload	General Practice47% relevance score	Jamal Siddique has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Arbitration	2 cases	8% of total caseload	Highly Specialized84% relevance score	Jamal Siddique has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Anti-suit injunction	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Jamal Siddique has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Winding Up	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Jamal Siddique has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Restructuring and Dissolution	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Jamal Siddique has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Jamal Siddique has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Contractual terms	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Jamal Siddique has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Corporate Restructuring	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Jamal Siddique has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Private International Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Jamal Siddique has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Corporate Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Jamal Siddique has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Jamal Siddique has been affiliated with 1 law firm. The most active affiliation involves 4 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Shook Lin & Bok LLP	4 cases	100% of cases	Goh Thien Phong v UT Singapore Services: Scheme of Arrangement & Creditor Classification(Oct 2024) SK Engineering v. Conchubar Aromatics: Schemes of Arrangement & Related Creditors(Aug 2017) BC Andaman v Xie Ning Yun: Anti-Suit Injunction & Arbitration of Blue Canyon Country Club Dispute(Mar 2017)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Jamal Siddique's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 6.9
Complex Cases: 2 (50%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	25.0 parties avg	5.0	50%
Neutral	114.0 parties avg	14.0	25%
Won	26.2 parties avg	6.2	50%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2016	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2017	26.3 parties avg	6.3
2024	114.0 parties avg	14.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Jamal Siddique'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%
Won	2(40%)	40%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	0.00	0.001 cases	1

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2016	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2017	3 12	Lost: 1 cases (33.3%) Won: 2 cases (66.7%)
2024	1 1	Neutral: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 4 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Goh Thien Phong v UT Singapore Services: Scheme of Arrangement & Creditor Classification 14 Oct 2024 DBS Bank Ltd (Non-party)Neutral	14 Oct 2024	DBS Bank Ltd (Non-party): NeutralThe judgment does not specify an outcome for this party.
2	SK Engineering v. Conchubar Aromatics: Schemes of Arrangement & Related Creditors 29 Aug 2017 SK Engineering & Construction Co Ltd (Appellant)Won	29 Aug 2017	SK Engineering & Construction Co Ltd (Appellant): Appeal AllowedAppeal allowed; the Judge’s order sanctioning the Schemes as well as his order for a one-year moratorium under s 210(10) of the Companies Act on all pending, contingent or fresh actions against the two Scheme Companies with effect from 29 August 2016 was set aside. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
3	BC Andaman v Xie Ning Yun: Anti-Suit Injunction & Arbitration of Blue Canyon Country Club Dispute 30 Mar 2017 Murex Co Limited (Plaintiff)Lost	30 Mar 2017	Murex Co Limited (Plaintiff): Permanent anti-suit injunction deniedPermanent anti-suit injunction denied in favour of Murex Co Limited against the Sias.
4	Re Conchubar Aromatics Ltd: Scheme of Arrangement, Creditor Voting & Companies Act s 210 19 Dec 2016 SK Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd (Respondent)Lost	19 Dec 2016	SK Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd (Respondent): Opposition DismissedSK Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd's opposition to the scheme of arrangement was dismissed.