Jerald Foo

Jerald Foo is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2015 to 2023. The lawyer has handled 9 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 3 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in civil practice and conflict of laws. Their track record shows a 56.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 4 complex cases, representing 44% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Jerald Foo has demonstrated expertise across 39 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and arbitration.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	7 cases	11% of total caseload	General Practice43% relevance score	Jerald Foo has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 7 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.
Arbitration	5 cases	8% of total caseload	General Practice41% relevance score	Jerald Foo has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 5 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	4 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced71% relevance score	Jerald Foo has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Company Law	4 cases	6% of total caseload	General Practice33% relevance score	Jerald Foo has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 4 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Commercial Law	3 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Jerald Foo has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	3 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Jerald Foo has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	2 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice23% relevance score	Jerald Foo has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	2 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice33% relevance score	Jerald Foo has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Fiduciary Duties	2 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	Jerald Foo has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Fraud and Deceit	2 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Jerald Foo has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Jurisdiction	2 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Jerald Foo has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Estoppel	2 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	Jerald Foo has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Evidence	2 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice42% relevance score	Jerald Foo has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Shareholder Disputes	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Jerald Foo has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Appellate Practice	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Jerald Foo has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Misrepresentation	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Jerald Foo has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Conflict of Laws	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Jerald Foo has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Inducement of Breach of Contract	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Jerald Foo has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Conspiracy by Unlawful Means	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Jerald Foo has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Director's Resignation	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Jerald Foo has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Recourse against award	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Jerald Foo has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Natural justice	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Jerald Foo has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Misuse of Drugs Act	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Jerald Foo 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	General Practice40% relevance score	Jerald Foo has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Natural forum	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Jerald Foo has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Criminal Procedure	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Jerald Foo has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Setting aside	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Jerald Foo has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Disclosure Obligations	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Jerald Foo has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Stay of Proceedings	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Jerald Foo 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 Specialized90% relevance score	Jerald Foo 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	Experienced60% relevance score	Jerald Foo has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Case Management Stay	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Jerald Foo has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Asset Recovery	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Jerald Foo has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Shareholders Agreement	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Jerald Foo has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Business Litigation	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Jerald Foo has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Constitutional Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Jerald Foo has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Corporate Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Jerald Foo has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Criminal Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Jerald Foo has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Property Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice25% relevance score	Jerald Foo has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Jerald Foo has been affiliated with 3 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 6 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Cavenagh Law LLP	6 cases	67% of cases	CIX v CIY: Setting Aside Partial Arbitration Award for Breach of Natural Justice and Exceeding Scope of Submission(Mar 2021) Macquarie Bank v. Graceland Industry: Commodity Swap, Mistake & Fiduciary Duty(May 2018) Macquarie Bank v. Graceland Industry: Amendment of Pleadings in Commodity Swap Dispute(Jan 2018)
Oon & Bazul LLP	2 cases	22% of cases	UD Trading Group v TA Private Capital: Leave to Appeal Stay of Proceedings(Feb 2022) TA Private Capital v UD Trading: Forum Non Conveniens & Stay of Proceedings(Dec 2021)
Selvam LLC	1 cases	11% of cases	Mehta v Mehta: Director Resignation & Validity of Board Resolutions(May 2023)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Jerald Foo's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 3.8
Complex Cases: 4 (44%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	33.8 parties avg	3.8	33%
Partial	13.0 parties avg	3.0	11%
Won	53.9 parties avg	3.9	56%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2015	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2016	25.0 parties avg	5.0
2018	23.0 parties avg	3.0
2021	23.3 parties avg	3.3
2022	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2023	15.0 parties avg	5.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	3(33%)	33%
Partial	1(11%)	11%
Won	5(56%)	56%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	99,500.00	19,900.005 cases	5
USD	1,200,000.00	1,200,000.001 cases	1

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2015	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2016	2 2	Won: 2 cases (100.0%)
2018	2 11	Partial: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2021	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2022	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2023	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 9 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Mehta v Mehta: Director Resignation & Validity of Board Resolutions 14 May 2023 Bhavin Rashmi Mehta (Appellant, Plaintiff)Lost	14 May 2023	Bhavin Rashmi Mehta (Appellant, Plaintiff): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed; Mr. Bhavin was ordered to pay costs of the appeal and also of HC/OA 342/2022 to the first to third respondents fixed at $50,000 all in. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
2	UD Trading Group v TA Private Capital: Leave to Appeal Stay of Proceedings 02 Feb 2022 TransAsia Private Capital Limited (Respondent)Won	02 Feb 2022	TransAsia Private Capital Limited (Respondent): WonApplication for leave to appeal dismissed; UDTG to pay costs of SGD 8,000 to the respondents. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
3	TA Private Capital v UD Trading: Forum Non Conveniens & Stay of Proceedings 09 Dec 2021 TransAsia Private Capital Limited (Plaintiff)Lost	09 Dec 2021	TransAsia Private Capital Limited (Plaintiff): Application dismissedRutmet's application for stay of proceedings dismissed.
4	CIX v CIY: Setting Aside Partial Arbitration Award for Breach of Natural Justice and Exceeding Scope of Submission 04 Mar 2021 CIY (Defendant)Won	04 Mar 2021	CIY (Defendant): Application dismissedPlaintiff's application to set aside certain findings in a partial arbitration award was dismissed. Legal costs of $24,000 plus disbursements of $4,696.60 awarded to the defendant (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
5	Macquarie Bank v. Graceland Industry: Commodity Swap, Mistake & Fiduciary Duty 03 May 2018 MACQUARIE BANK LIMITED (Plaintiff, Defendant)Won	03 May 2018	MACQUARIE BANK LIMITED (Plaintiff, Defendant): Judgment for PlaintiffJudgment for the Plaintiff in the amount of $1,200,000 (assumed USD, as the judgment involves a US dollar amount and the parties were discussing international transactions).
6	Macquarie Bank v. Graceland Industry: Amendment of Pleadings in Commodity Swap Dispute 23 Jan 2018 MACQUARIE BANK LIMITED (Plaintiff, Defendant in Counterclaim)Partial	23 Jan 2018	MACQUARIE BANK LIMITED (Plaintiff, Defendant in Counterclaim): Costs awardedCosts of the application and costs in relation to consequential amendments to the pleadings were ordered to be paid by Graceland to Macquarie. Costs for the first hearing were fixed at $6,000, including disbursements. Additional costs for the second and third hearings were fixed at $3,500. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
7	Success Elegant Trading v La Dolce Vita: Pre-Action Discovery & Fraud 14 Aug 2016 La Dolce Vita Fine Dining Group Holdings Limited (Respondent, Plaintiff)Won	14 Aug 2016	La Dolce Vita Fine Dining Group Holdings Limited (Respondent, Plaintiff): Appeal AllowedAppeal allowed against the costs orders of the AR and granted the Plaintiffs costs here and below, to be taxed if not agreed (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
8	La Dolce Vita v Deutsche Bank: Pre-Action Discovery & Tracing Fraudulent Transfers 25 Feb 2016 La Dolce Vita Fine Dining Group Holdings Limited (Plaintiff)Won	25 Feb 2016	La Dolce Vita Fine Dining Group Holdings Limited (Plaintiff): Application grantedApplication for pre-action discovery granted.
9	Rosman bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor: Drug Trafficking, Re-Sentencing Application, Substantive Assistance to CNB 02 Nov 2015 Rosman bin Abdullah (Applicant)Lost	02 Nov 2015	Rosman bin Abdullah (Applicant): Application DismissedThe re-sentencing application was dismissed, and the death sentence was affirmed.