Jonathan Tang

Jonathan Tang is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2012 to 2018. The lawyer has handled 5 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 3 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in banking and finance and family law. Their track record shows a 20.0% success rate in resolved cases.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Jonathan Tang has demonstrated expertise across 36 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and misrepresentation.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	4 cases	9% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	Jonathan Tang has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 4 cases which represents 9% of their total caseload.
Misrepresentation	2 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice33% relevance score	Jonathan Tang has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Evidence Law	2 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	Jonathan Tang has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Banking and Finance	2 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Jonathan Tang has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Estoppel	2 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	Jonathan Tang has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Commercial Law	2 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	Jonathan Tang has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	2 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Jonathan Tang has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Jonathan Tang has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Family Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Jonathan Tang has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Interrogatories	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Jonathan Tang has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Investments	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Jonathan Tang has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Property Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Jonathan Tang has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Recognition of Foreign Judgments	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Jonathan Tang has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Fiduciary Duties	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Jonathan Tang has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Jurisdiction	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Jonathan Tang has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Agency Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Jonathan Tang has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Summary Judgement	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Jonathan Tang has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Company Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Jonathan Tang has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Matrimonial Assets	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Jonathan Tang has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Division of Matrimonial Property	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Jonathan Tang has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Restraint Order	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Jonathan Tang has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Equity	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Jonathan Tang has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Discovery Obligations	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Jonathan Tang has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Best Efforts Clause	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice15% relevance score	Jonathan Tang has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Guarantees and indemnities	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Jonathan Tang has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Guarantor	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice5% relevance score	Jonathan Tang has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Warranties	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Jonathan Tang has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Asset Management	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Jonathan Tang has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Arbitration	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice15% relevance score	Jonathan Tang has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Scheme of Arrangement	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Jonathan Tang 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	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Jonathan Tang has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Bankruptcy	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Jonathan Tang has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Jonathan Tang 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	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Jonathan Tang has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Commercial Fraud	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Jonathan Tang has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Commercial Litigation	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Jonathan Tang has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Jonathan Tang has been affiliated with 3 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 3 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
WongPartnership LLP	3 cases	60% of cases	Re Sembawang Engineers: Convening Creditors Meeting for Scheme of Arrangement(Sep 2015) Tan Poh Beng v Choo Lee Mei: Enforceability of Foreign Ancillary Orders for Property Division in Singapore(Aug 2014) Teo Wai Cheong v Crédit Industriel et Commercial: Unauthorized Equity Accumulators & Bank's Discovery Obligations(May 2013)
TSMP Law Corporation	1 cases	20% of cases	Prudential Assurance v Tan Shou Yi Peter: Interrogatories & Authenticity of Audio Recordings(Apr 2018)
Wong Partnership LLP	1 cases	20% of cases	Crédit Industriel et Commercial v Teo Wai Cheong: Dispute over Equity Accumulator Transactions(May 2012)

Case Complexity Analysis

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

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 2.0
Complex Cases: 0 (0%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	32.0 parties avg	2.0	60%
Partial	12.0 parties avg	2.0	20%
Won	12.0 parties avg	2.0	20%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2012	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2013	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2014	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2015	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2018	12.0 parties avg	2.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	3(60%)	60%
Partial	1(20%)	20%
Won	1(20%)	20%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	6,459,519.83	3,229,759.922 cases	2

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2012	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2013	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2014	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2015	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2018	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 5 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Prudential Assurance v Tan Shou Yi Peter: Interrogatories & Authenticity of Audio Recordings 11 Apr 2018 Tan Shou Yi Peter (Defendant, Applicant)Partial	11 Apr 2018	Tan Shou Yi Peter (Defendant, Applicant): Application dismissed in partThe court ordered the withdrawal of the Secondary Queries and the Final Interrogatory, but declined to order the withdrawal of the Primary Queries.
2	Re Sembawang Engineers: Convening Creditors Meeting for Scheme of Arrangement 22 Sep 2015 Rigel Technology (S) Pte Ltd (Respondent)Lost	22 Sep 2015	Rigel Technology (S) Pte Ltd (Respondent): Application DeniedThe creditor's opposition to the company's application was unsuccessful.
3	Tan Poh Beng v Choo Lee Mei: Enforceability of Foreign Ancillary Orders for Property Division in Singapore 17 Aug 2014 Tan Poh Beng (Plaintiff)Lost	17 Aug 2014	Tan Poh Beng (Plaintiff): Application dismissedPlaintiff's application for the sale of the property and enforcement of the Malaysian Court Order was dismissed. No order as to costs was made, given the Defendant's unreasonable refusal to execute the Transfer Instrument. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
4	Teo Wai Cheong v Crédit Industriel et Commercial: Unauthorized Equity Accumulators & Bank's Discovery Obligations 16 May 2013 Crédit Industriel et Commercial (Respondent)Lost	16 May 2013	Crédit Industriel et Commercial (Respondent): Claims dismissedThe Bank’s claims against Teo are dismissed. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
5	Crédit Industriel et Commercial v Teo Wai Cheong: Dispute over Equity Accumulator Transactions 02 May 2012 Crédit Industriel et Commercial (Plaintiff)Won	02 May 2012	Crédit Industriel et Commercial (Plaintiff): Judgment for PlaintiffJudgment for the plaintiff. Teo is to pay CIC $2,782,803.66 for the shares delivered, $3,625,393.11 for closing out costs, and interest of $51,323.06 as of 29 August 2008 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).