Jimmy Yap

Jimmy Yap is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2000 to 2024. The lawyer has handled 18 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 5 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in trust law and legal ethics and professional responsibility. Their track record shows a 56.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 9 complex cases, representing 50% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Jimmy Yap has demonstrated expertise across 99 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and civil procedure.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	15 cases	10% of total caseload	Experienced63% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 15 cases which represents 10% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	6 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice37% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 6 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Company Law	5 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 5 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Fiduciary Duties	5 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced74% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 5 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Evidence Law	4 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice48% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 4 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	4 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced69% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Fraud and Deceit	4 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced56% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	3 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice13% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Property Law	3 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced67% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Unjust Enrichment	3 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced57% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Commercial Disputes	3 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Trust Law	3 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized76% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Bankruptcy	2 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Banking Law	2 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice25% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Mortgage Law	2 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Banking and Finance	2 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice43% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Real Estate	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Shareholder Disputes	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Torts	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Wrongful Termination	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Insolvency Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Winding Up	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Injunctions	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Gifts Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Minority Oppression	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Conspiracy by Unlawful Means	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Receivership	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Illegality and public policy	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Damages Assessment	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Abuse of Process	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Director's Duties	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Equity and limitation of actions	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Formation of contract	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Costs	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Res Judicata	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Mistake of fact	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Failure of consideration	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Change of position	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Garnishee Proceedings	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Legal Profession Act	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Estoppel	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Remedies	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Proof of Debt	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Liquidator	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Presumption of Advancement	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Specific performance	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Damages	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Strata Titles	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Evidence	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Guarantee	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Disclosure of documents	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Succession Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Appeal	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Deeds of Family Arrangement	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Sale of Goods	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Inter vivos gift	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Resulting Trust	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Gifts	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Intestacy	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Distribution of assets	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Guarantees and indemnities	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Guarantor	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Inter vivos	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Part Performance	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Intention of Parties	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Restructuring and Insolvency	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Deed of Family Arrangement	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Deeds	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Letter of undertaking	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Foreign Illegality	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Remittance	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Contractual Remedies	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Restructuring	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Insurance Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Enforcement of Judgments	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Electronic Discovery	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Mortgage Actions	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Cloud Computing	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
HDB Flats	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Consultancy Agreement	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Guarantor's Liability	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Bills of Sale	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Standard Operating Procedure	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Banking Litigation	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Business Litigation	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Chancery and Equity	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Constitutional Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Construction Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice25% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Corporate Governance	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Corporate Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Credit and Security	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Cross-Border Insolvency	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Employment Contracts	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Employment Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Family Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice25% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Housing Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Land Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Jimmy Yap has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Jimmy Yap has been affiliated with 5 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 13 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Jimmy Yap & Co	13 cases	72% of cases	Re Zhong Jun Resources: Expunging Proof of Debt in Winding Up(Jun 2024) Ang Jian Sheng Jonathan v Lyu Yan: Illegality and Public Policy in Cross-Border Remittance(Feb 2021) Lyu Yan v Lim Tien Chiang: Breach of Contract, Misrepresentation, and Conspiracy in Cross-Border Remittance(Jul 2020)
Jimmy Yap and Co	2 cases	11% of cases	Choo Kok Lin v The Management Corp: Strata Title Dispute over Condo By-Laws & Mandatory Injunction(Aug 2005) Teh Guek Ngor Engelin v Chia Ee Lin: Wrongful Termination of Consultancy Agreement Dispute(Apr 2005)
Independent Practitioner	1 cases	6% of cases	Maxz Universal v Lian: Breach of Director's Duties & Conflict of Interest in Company Financial Disputes(Feb 2010)
Donaldson & Burkinshaw	1 cases	6% of cases	Ching Mun Fong v Liu Cho Chit: Res Judicata, Constructive Trusts & Amending Pleadings(Jan 2000)
Ngaw Tan & Yap	1 cases	6% of cases	SM Trading v Intersanctuary: Conspiracy & Fiduciary Duty in Columbarium Contract Dispute(Jun 2006)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Jimmy Yap's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 9.1
Complex Cases: 9 (50%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	53.7 parties avg	3.7	28%
Partial	36.3 parties avg	6.3	17%
Won	1011.0 parties avg	11.0	56%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2000	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2002	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2005	24.0 parties avg	4.0
2006	314.4 parties avg	14.4
2009	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2010	27.3 parties avg	7.3
2012	23.5 parties avg	3.5
2013	24.3 parties avg	4.3
2014	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2020	14.0 parties avg	4.0
2021	14.0 parties avg	4.0
2024	13.0 parties avg	3.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	5(28%)	28%
Partial	3(17%)	17%
Won	10(56%)	56%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	3,176,826.00	397,103.258 cases	8
USD	45,080,000.00	22,540,000.002 cases	2

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2000	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2002	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2005	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2006	3 21	Lost: 2 cases (66.7%) Won: 1 cases (33.3%)
2009	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)
2010	2 11	Partial: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2012	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Partial: 1 cases (50.0%)
2013	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2014	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2020	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2021	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2024	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 18 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Re Zhong Jun Resources: Expunging Proof of Debt in Winding Up 25 Jun 2024 Shenzhen Huomei-Hongjun Aluminium Trading Co (Non-party)Won	25 Jun 2024	Shenzhen Huomei-Hongjun Aluminium Trading Co (Non-party): Applications dismissedLiquidator's applications to expunge proofs of debt were dismissed. Costs fixed at $12,000 (inclusive of disbursements) to be paid to each of Shenzhen. The judgment does not specify a currency, so SGD is assumed as the jurisdiction is Singapore.
2	Ang Jian Sheng Jonathan v Lyu Yan: Illegality and Public Policy in Cross-Border Remittance 22 Feb 2021 Lyu Yan @ Lu Yan (Respondent, Plaintiff)Won	22 Feb 2021	Lyu Yan @ Lu Yan (Respondent, Plaintiff): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed; awarded costs of $38,500 from the appellants.
3	Lyu Yan v Lim Tien Chiang: Breach of Contract, Misrepresentation, and Conspiracy in Cross-Border Remittance 19 Jul 2020 Lyu Yan @ Lu Yan (Plaintiff)Won	19 Jul 2020	Lyu Yan @ Lu Yan (Plaintiff): Judgment for PlaintiffJudgment for US$3 million against Joseph, or RMB20,970,000 against Joseph, Jonathan and Derek jointly and severally, and RMB105,000 against Joseph only, at her election.
4	Ong & Ong v Fairview Developments: Offer to Settle & Contract Law 17 Mar 2014 Fairview Developments Private Limited (Defendant)Won	17 Mar 2014	Fairview Developments Private Limited (Defendant): Application grantedDeclaration granted that the defendant's acceptance of the plaintiff's offer to settle was valid. The defendant is to pay to the plaintiff the sum of S$2,588,666 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
5	Chiang Sing Jeong v Treasure Resort: Shareholding Dispute & Express Trust Claim 04 Jul 2013 Lim Chong Poon (Defendant)Won	04 Jul 2013	Lim Chong Poon (Defendant): Claim AllowedEstablished a prima facie case that there was a completely constituted trust for value in his favour, the existence of which was acknowledged by Seeto and Rodney on numerous occasions. Under that trust, he was entitled to 25% of TR’s shareholding subject to a cap of $10m on the paid-up capital of TR.
6	Dirak Asia v Chew Hua Kok: Electronic Discovery, Cloud Computing & Power Over Documents 08 Jan 2013 Soo (Defendant)Lost	08 Jan 2013	Soo (Defendant): Application GrantedApplication for discovery of emails granted against the defendant (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
7	Lim Hoe Heng v Poh Choon Kia: Specific Performance of HDB Flat Sale 17 Oct 2012 Lim Hoe Heng (Appellant)Partial	17 Oct 2012	Lim Hoe Heng (Appellant): Appeal allowed in partAppeal allowed on the question of late completion interest.
8	Poh Choon Kia v Lim Hoe Heng: Specific Performance of HDB Flat Sale 25 Apr 2012 Lim Hoe Heng (Defendant)Lost	25 Apr 2012	Lim Hoe Heng (Defendant): Judgment against DefendantSpecific performance of the contract for the sale of the flat was ordered. Late completion interest at 10% per annum was ordered to be paid by the first defendant to the plaintiffs with effect from 8 April 2011 until the date of completion. The currency is assumed to be SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
9	Lian Hwee Choo Phebe v Maxz Universal: Minority Oppression & Share Dilution 07 Sep 2010 Kok Lan Choo (Plaintiff)Partial	07 Sep 2010	Kok Lan Choo (Plaintiff): First Rights Issue struck down; buy-out of shares orderedFirst Rights Issue struck down; buy-out of shares ordered at the higher of their value immediately prior to the First Rights Issue or the current value. The currency is assumed to be SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
10	Maxz Universal v Lian: Breach of Director's Duties & Conflict of Interest in Company Financial Disputes 25 Feb 2010 Lian Hwee Choo, Phebe (Defendant)Won	25 Feb 2010	Lian Hwee Choo, Phebe (Defendant): Judgment for DefendantJudgment in favor of the defendant; the plaintiff's claims were dismissed with costs to the defendant. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
11	DB Trustees v Consult Asia: Enforcement of Trust Deed, Security Deed & Moneylenders Act 12 Mar 2009 Consult Asia Pte Ltd (Defendant)Partial	12 Mar 2009	Consult Asia Pte Ltd (Defendant): Counterclaim Allowed in PartDefendant shall pay the plaintiff a sum of US$42,080,000 to redeem the US$32 million Notes together with interest to be calculated in accordance with the Trust Deed and the conditions of the Notes; such payment shall be made by 4 pm, 29 April 2009, failing which an ‘Event of Default’ within the meaning of the Conditions of the Notes shall be deemed to have occurred.
12	Low Gim Siah v Low Geok Khim: Presumption of Advancement in Joint Bank Accounts 21 Dec 2006 Low Chye Chim (Appellant)Won	21 Dec 2006	Low Chye Chim (Appellant): Appeal AllowedAppeal allowed; the money in the six joint accounts is held by LGB on a resulting trust for the Estate.
13	Law Society v Lim Cheong Peng: Professional Misconduct & False Attestation of Bills of Sale 20 Aug 2006 Law Society of Singapore (Applicant)Lost	20 Aug 2006	Law Society of Singapore (Applicant): Application DismissedThe Law Society's application was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.
14	SM Trading v Intersanctuary: Conspiracy & Fiduciary Duty in Columbarium Contract Dispute 14 Jun 2006 SM Trading Services (a firm) (Plaintiff)Lost	14 Jun 2006	SM Trading Services (a firm) (Plaintiff): Claim DismissedThe plaintiff's claim for breach of contract was dismissed.
15	Choo Kok Lin v The Management Corp: Strata Title Dispute over Condo By-Laws & Mandatory Injunction 10 Aug 2005 The Management Corp Strata Title Plan No 2405 (Respondent)Lost	10 Aug 2005	The Management Corp Strata Title Plan No 2405 (Respondent): Appeal dismissedAppeal allowed and the orders made below are set aside.
16	Teh Guek Ngor Engelin v Chia Ee Lin: Wrongful Termination of Consultancy Agreement Dispute 05 Apr 2005 Koh Lee Kheng Florence (Respondent)Won	05 Apr 2005	Koh Lee Kheng Florence (Respondent): Costs AwardedCosts awarded in favor of Florence Koh. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
17	United Lifestyle v Oakwell: Contract Interpretation & HDB Approval for Change of Use 16 Apr 2002 Oakwell Egineering Ltd (Defendant)Won	16 Apr 2002	Oakwell Egineering Ltd (Defendant): Judgment for DefendantJudgment in favor of the Defendant. The Defendant is entitled to the deposit of $537,660 that has been paid into court. The judgment does not specify a currency, so SGD is assumed as the jurisdiction is Singapore.
18	Ching Mun Fong v Liu Cho Chit: Res Judicata, Constructive Trusts & Amending Pleadings 11 Jan 2000 Ching Mun Fong (Appellant)Won	11 Jan 2000	Ching Mun Fong (Appellant): Appeal AllowedThe appellant's appeal against the decision to strike out the statement of claim and disallow amendments was allowed.