James Low

James Low is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2009 to 2019. The lawyer has handled 7 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 4 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in criminal procedure and sentencing. Their track record shows a 71.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 2 complex cases, representing 29% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

James Low has demonstrated expertise across 35 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and banking and finance.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	4 cases	8% of total caseload	Experienced61% relevance score	James Low has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Banking and Finance	3 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	James Low has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Arbitration	3 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	James Low has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Evidence	3 cases	6% of total caseload	General Practice47% relevance score	James Low has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Asset Recovery	2 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice35% relevance score	James Low has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	2 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced68% relevance score	James Low has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Commercial Law	2 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	James Low has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Criminal Procedure	2 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized83% relevance score	James Low has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Private International Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	James Low has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Fiduciary Duties	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice25% relevance score	James Low has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Misrepresentation	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	James Low has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Jurisdiction	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	James Low has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Sentencing	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	James Low has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Anti-suit injunction	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	James Low has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Contempt of Court	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	James Low has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Culpable Homicide	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	James Low has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Examination of judgment debtor	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	James Low has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Judgments and Orders	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	James Low has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Psychiatry	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	James Low has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Mutual Legal Assistance	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	James Low has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Pre-action discovery	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	James Low has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Penal Code	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	James Low has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Domestic Helper Abuse	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	James Low has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Derivatives Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	James Low has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Margin Trading	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	James Low has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Financial Crisis	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	James Low has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	James Low has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Customer-Banker Relationship	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	James Low has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Banking Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	James Low has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	James Low has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Criminal Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	James Low has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	James Low has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Forum Non Conveniens	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	James Low has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
International Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	James Low has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Negligence	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	James Low has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

James Low has been affiliated with 4 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 4 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Drew & Napier LLC	4 cases	57% of cases	Tan Poh Leng Stanley v UBS AG: Contractual Terms, Negligence, & Equity Accumulators(Feb 2016) Global Distressed Alpha Fund I v PT Bakrie: Contempt of Court for Failure to Comply with Examination Order(May 2013) Whang Tar Liang v Standard Chartered Bank: Pre-Action Discovery & Equity-Linked Notes(Jun 2011)
Attorney-General’s Chambers	1 cases	14% of cases	Public Prosecutor v Dewi Sukowati: Culpable Homicide Sentencing(Sep 2016)
Drew and Napier LLC	1 cases	14% of cases	UBS AG v Telesto Investments: Forum Non Conveniens, Anti-Suit Injunction, Contractual Obligations(Jul 2011)
Attorney-General’s Chambers (International Affairs Division)	1 cases	14% of cases	BSD v Attorney-General: Mutual Legal Assistance, Production Orders & Disclosure(May 2019)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of James Low's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 3.0
Complex Cases: 2 (29%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Partial	24.0 parties avg	4.0	29%
Won	52.6 parties avg	2.6	71%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2009	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2011	23.0 parties avg	3.0
2013	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2016	22.0 parties avg	2.0
2019	16.0 parties avg	6.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Partial	2(29%)	29%
Won	5(71%)	71%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	8,000.00	2,000.004 cases	4

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2009	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2011	2 2	Won: 2 cases (100.0%)
2013	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2016	2 11	Partial: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2019	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 7 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	BSD v Attorney-General: Mutual Legal Assistance, Production Orders & Disclosure 05 May 2019 Attorney-General (Respondent)Partial	05 May 2019	Attorney-General (Respondent): Partial WinAppeals in RAS 1/2018 and RAS 2/2018 allowed subject to the Requesting State’s decision whether it wishes the AG to proceed further to execute its request. Originating Summons No 945 of 2017 dismissed.
2	Public Prosecutor v Dewi Sukowati: Culpable Homicide Sentencing 15 Sep 2016 Public Prosecutor (Prosecution)Partial	15 Sep 2016	Public Prosecutor (Prosecution): Sentence of 18 years imprisonment imposedThe Public Prosecutor sought a sentence of 20 years, but the court imposed a sentence of 18 years.
3	Tan Poh Leng Stanley v UBS AG: Contractual Terms, Negligence, & Equity Accumulators 09 Feb 2016 UBS AG (Defendant)Won	09 Feb 2016	UBS AG (Defendant): Judgment for DefendantCourt ruled in favor of the defendant, UBS AG.
4	Global Distressed Alpha Fund I v PT Bakrie: Contempt of Court for Failure to Comply with Examination Order 13 May 2013 Global Distressed Alpha Fund I Ltd Partnership (Plaintiff)Won	13 May 2013	Global Distressed Alpha Fund I Ltd Partnership (Plaintiff): Application AllowedApplication allowed; Robertus Bismarka Kurniawan to be committed to prison for seven days and a Warrant of Arrest to be issued, both suspended pending appeal. Costs awarded to the Plaintiff. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
5	UBS AG v Telesto Investments: Forum Non Conveniens, Anti-Suit Injunction, Contractual Obligations 13 Jul 2011 UBS AG (Plaintiff, Respondent)Won	13 Jul 2011	UBS AG (Plaintiff, Respondent): Appeal DismissedAppeal against the stay applications was dismissed. Appeal against the anti-suit injunction was dismissed. (Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
6	Whang Tar Liang v Standard Chartered Bank: Pre-Action Discovery & Equity-Linked Notes 16 Jun 2011 Standard Chartered Bank (Defendant)Won	16 Jun 2011	Standard Chartered Bank (Defendant): Application DismissedDefendant successfully opposed the plaintiff's application for pre-action discovery. Costs were fixed at $8,000 on an indemnity basis (exclusive of reasonable disbursements) pursuant to Order 24 Rule 6(9) of the Rules of Court. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
7	Merrill Lynch v Harjani: Stay of Proceedings Under International Arbitration Act 03 Jun 2009 Merrill Lynch Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc (Plaintiff)Won	03 Jun 2009	Merrill Lynch Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc (Plaintiff): Appeal DismissedThe appeal by the second defendant was dismissed with costs. The judgment does not specify a currency, so SGD is assumed as the jurisdiction is Singapore.