Jocelyn

Jocelyn is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2020 to 2025. The lawyer has handled 2 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 1 law firm. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in administrative law and constitutional law. Their track record shows a 100.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 2 complex cases, representing 100% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Jocelyn has demonstrated expertise across 8 primary practice areas, with significant experience in administrative law and civil practice.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Administrative Law	1 cases	13% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Jocelyn has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 13% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	1 cases	13% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Jocelyn has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 13% of their total caseload.
Constitutional Law	1 cases	13% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Jocelyn has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 13% of their total caseload.
Land Law	1 cases	13% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Jocelyn has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 13% of their total caseload.
Property Law	1 cases	13% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Jocelyn has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 13% of their total caseload.
Striking Out Applications	1 cases	13% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Jocelyn has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 13% of their total caseload.
Judicial Review	1 cases	13% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Jocelyn has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 13% of their total caseload.
Compulsory Land Acquisition	1 cases	13% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Jocelyn has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 13% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Jocelyn has been affiliated with 1 law firm. The most active affiliation involves 2 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Attorney-General’s Chambers	2 cases	100% of cases	Masoud Rahimi v Attorney-General: Striking Out Application, Constitutional Rights of Prisoners Awaiting Capital Punishment(Feb 2025) Ahmad Kasim v Singapore Land Authority: Judicial Review of Land Acquisition Compensation(May 2020)

Case Complexity Analysis

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

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 11.0
Complex Cases: 2 (100%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Won	211.0 parties avg	11.0	100%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2020	14.0 parties avg	4.0
2025	132.0 parties avg	32.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Won	2(100%)	100%

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2020	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2025	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 2 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Masoud Rahimi v Attorney-General: Striking Out Application, Constitutional Rights of Prisoners Awaiting Capital Punishment 04 Feb 2025 Attorney-General (Respondent)Won	04 Feb 2025	Attorney-General (Respondent): Application to strike out originating application allowedApplication to strike out originating application allowed because the applicants lacked standing and their challenges had no chance of success.
2	Ahmad Kasim v Singapore Land Authority: Judicial Review of Land Acquisition Compensation 03 May 2020 Attorney-General of the Republic of Singapore (Respondent)Won	03 May 2020	Attorney-General of the Republic of Singapore (Respondent): Judgment for RespondentThe application against the Attorney-General of the Republic of Singapore was dismissed.