Jordan Tan

Jordan Tan is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2015 to 2024. The lawyer has handled 22 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 3 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in civil practice and disclosure of documents. Their track record shows a 52.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 17 complex cases, representing 77% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Jordan Tan has demonstrated expertise across 81 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and civil procedure.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	13 cases	8% of total caseload	General Practice43% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 13 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	11 cases	6% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 11 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Arbitration	9 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice29% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 9 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Fiduciary Duties	8 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced58% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 8 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Company Law	8 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced64% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 8 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Commercial Disputes	8 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice38% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 8 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	7 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice46% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 7 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Misrepresentation	5 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced57% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 5 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	5 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 5 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Bankruptcy	4 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced54% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Jurisdiction	4 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice43% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 4 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	3 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice14% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Banking and Finance	3 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice36% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Winding Up	3 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced53% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Insolvency Law	3 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced63% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Summary Judgement	3 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice26% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Evidence	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Service out of jurisdiction	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced53% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Criminal Law	2 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Disclosure of documents	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized83% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Production of documents	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized83% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Judicial Management	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced73% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Costs	2 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Constitutional Law	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized93% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Corporate Litigation	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced53% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Statutory Interpretation	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized78% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Civil Contempt	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Jordan Tan 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	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Riddick principle	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin 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	Jordan Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Letter of Credit Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Jordan Tan 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	General Practice30% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Agency Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Trust Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Judgments and Orders	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Valuation	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Fraudulent misrepresentation	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Appeals	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Companies Act	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Shareholders Agreement	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Duty to Account	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Peremptory orders	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Conflict of Laws	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Shareholders	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Shareholders Rights	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Rules of court	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Non-compliance	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Service of document	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Bills of Exchange	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Inducing Breach of Contract	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Fictitious Purchase Scheme	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Shareholders Disputes	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Corporate self-representation	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice25% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Breach of Discovery Order	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Interlocutory Orders	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Appellate Practice	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Business Litigation	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Civil Litigation	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Commercial Fraud	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Commercial Litigation	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Jordan Tan 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	General Practice30% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
International Arbitration	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Mareva Injunctions	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Negligence	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Property Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Shareholder Disputes	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Summary Judgment	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Jordan Tan 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	Experienced65% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Restructuring and Dissolution	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Jordan Tan 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 Specialized90% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Fraud and Deceit	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Inducement of Breach of Contract	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Termination	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Evidence Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Jordan Tan 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	Experienced50% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
International Commercial Arbitration	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Director's Liability	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Jordan Tan 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	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Unjust Enrichment	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Amendment of Pleadings	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Jordan Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Jordan Tan has been affiliated with 3 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 15 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Audent Chambers LLC	15 cases	68% of cases	True Yoga v Wee Ewe Seng: Assessment of Damages for Breach of Fiduciary & Contractual Duties(Sep 2024) Eurofins Mechem v Quek Sze Wei: Summary Judgment Appeal on Factual Concessions(Sep 2024) Wuhu Ruyi Xinbo v Shandong Ruyi: Production of Documents and Peremptory Orders(Jul 2024)
Cavenagh Law LLP	6 cases	27% of cases	Ong Ming Johnson v Attorney-General: Challenge to Section 377A Fails(Mar 2020) Liew Kit Fah v Koh Keng Chew: Share Valuation Dispute in Minority Shareholder Buyout(Nov 2019) Qroi Ltd v Ian Pascoe: Breach of Warranty of Authority Dispute(Feb 2019)
Cavenagh Law LLC	1 cases	5% of cases	Ivanishvili v Credit Suisse: Forum Non Conveniens & Exclusive Jurisdiction in Trust Dispute(Jan 2019)

Case Complexity Analysis

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

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 5.1
Complex Cases: 17 (77%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	75.8 parties avg	5.8	32%
Neutral	24.5 parties avg	4.5	9%
Partial	15.0 parties avg	5.0	5%
Unknown	16.0 parties avg	6.0	5%
Won	124.8 parties avg	4.8	55%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2015	15.0 parties avg	5.0
2016	15.0 parties avg	5.0
2017	17.0 parties avg	7.0
2019	37.4 parties avg	7.4
2020	14.0 parties avg	4.0
2021	45.9 parties avg	5.9
2022	34.9 parties avg	4.9
2023	23.5 parties avg	3.5
2024	63.7 parties avg	3.7

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	7(30%)	30%
Neutral	2(9%)	9%
Partial	1(4%)	4%
Unknown	1(4%)	4%
Won	12(52%)	52%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	337,000.00	28,083.3312 cases	12

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2015	2 11	Neutral: 1 cases (50.0%) Partial: 1 cases (50.0%)
2016	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2017	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2019	3 21	Lost: 2 cases (66.7%) Won: 1 cases (33.3%)
2020	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2021	4 112	Lost: 1 cases (25.0%) Unknown: 1 cases (25.0%) Won: 2 cases (50.0%)
2022	3 12	Lost: 1 cases (33.3%) Won: 2 cases (66.7%)
2023	2 2	Won: 2 cases (100.0%)
2024	6 15	Neutral: 1 cases (16.7%) Won: 5 cases (83.3%)

Case History

Displaying all 22 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	True Yoga v Wee Ewe Seng: Assessment of Damages for Breach of Fiduciary & Contractual Duties 04 Sep 2024 True Fitness Pte Ltd (Plaintiff)Neutral	04 Sep 2024	True Fitness Pte Ltd (Plaintiff): Parties are to instruct their experts to reach an agreement on the value of the plaintiffs’ losses based on the parameters set out in the judgment.Parties are to instruct their experts to reach an agreement on the value of the plaintiffs’ losses based on the parameters set out in the judgment.
2	Eurofins Mechem v Quek Sze Wei: Summary Judgment Appeal on Factual Concessions 01 Sep 2024 Eurofins Mechem Pte Ltd (Claimant, Respondent)Won	01 Sep 2024	Eurofins Mechem Pte Ltd (Claimant, Respondent): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed; Eurofins awarded costs of $20,000 plus disbursements of $483.95 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
3	Wuhu Ruyi Xinbo v Shandong Ruyi: Production of Documents and Peremptory Orders 24 Jul 2024 European Topsoho S.àr.l. (Respondent)Won	24 Jul 2024	European Topsoho S.àr.l. (Respondent): Unless Order take effectThe second respondent's application for the Unless Order to take effect was granted. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
4	True Yoga v Wee Ewe Seng: Lifting Riddick Undertaking for Hong Kong Proceedings 24 Apr 2024 True Yoga Pte Ltd (Plaintiff)Won	24 Apr 2024	True Yoga Pte Ltd (Plaintiff): Application allowedPlaintiffs' application allowed, for the sole purpose of allowing the Hong Kong Court to determine whether there had been a breach of its court order in HCA 1469/2019. Costs here and below are reserved to the trial judge. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
5	Luckin Coffee Inc v Interactive Digital Finance Ltd: Jurisdiction & Service Out of Singapore 04 Mar 2024 Credit Suisse AG (Respondent)Won	04 Mar 2024	Credit Suisse AG (Respondent): Application for permission to appeal dismissedLuckin's application for permission to appeal against the decision of the Judge in RA 206 was dismissed. The court ordered Luckin to pay the costs of the application fixed at $7,000, inclusive of disbursements, to the Claimants collectively, and also to Credit Suisse AG individually. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
6	DFD v DFE: Disclosure of Documents and Peremptory Orders in International Arbitration Enforcement 29 Feb 2024 DFF (Respondent)Won	29 Feb 2024	DFF (Respondent): Application for document production grantedApplication for document production granted in part.
7	Interactive Digital Finance Ltd v Credit Suisse AG: Production of Documents under Rules of Court 2021 23 Jul 2023 Credit Suisse AG (Defendant, Respondent)Won	23 Jul 2023	Credit Suisse AG (Defendant, Respondent): Successful in resisting appealSuccessfully resisted the appeal against the AR's order for production of documents. To bear their own costs (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
8	Milaha Explorer Pte Ltd v Pengrui Leasing: Appeal Over Mareva Injunction in Ship Sale Dispute 19 Feb 2023 Milaha Explorer Pte Ltd (Appellant)Won	19 Feb 2023	Milaha Explorer Pte Ltd (Appellant): Appeal AllowedAppeal allowed; Mareva injunction set aside; costs awarded to Milaha Explorer Pte Ltd fixed at $45,000 (inclusive of disbursements) for its costs here and below. Pengrui was ordered to refund the costs below paid by Milaha. The usual consequential orders applied. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
9	True Yoga v Wee Ewe Seng: Director's Duties, Breach of Contract, and Wrongful Termination 04 Jul 2022 True Fitness Pte Ltd (Plaintiff)Won	04 Jul 2022	True Fitness Pte Ltd (Plaintiff): Judgment for Plaintiff on breach of dutiesJudgment for Plaintiff on breach of duties; The quantification of the plaintiff’s losses would be determined at a later date unless parties are able to resolve that issue by agreement or mediation. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
10	Tan Seng Kee v Attorney-General: Constitutionality of Section 377A Penal Code & Freedom of Expression 27 Feb 2022 Choong Chee Hong (Appellant, Plaintiff)Lost	27 Feb 2022	Choong Chee Hong (Appellant, Plaintiff): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed; Section 377A deemed unenforceable unless Attorney-General signals change in prosecutorial policy.
11	Yihua Lifestyle Technology Co v Phua Yong Tat: Amendment of Pleadings & Fraudulent Misrepresentation 30 Jan 2022 Golden Hill Capital Pte Ltd (Defendant)Won	30 Jan 2022	Golden Hill Capital Pte Ltd (Defendant): Appeal AllowedThe defendants' appeal against the decision to allow the plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim was allowed.
12	Yihua Lifestyle v HTL International: Judicial Management & Discretion of Judicial Managers 07 Sep 2021 Golden Hill Capital Pte Ltd (Respondent)Won	07 Sep 2021	Golden Hill Capital Pte Ltd (Respondent): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed with costs. The judgment does not specify a currency, so SGD is assumed as the jurisdiction is Singapore.
13	Golden Hill Capital v Yihua Lifestyle: Appeal on Judicial Management & Asset Sale 29 Aug 2021 Phua Yong Tat (Applicant)	29 Aug 2021	Phua Yong Tat (Applicant): -
14	Bank of China v BP Singapore: Negligence, Fraud & Letter of Credit Dispute 30 May 2021 BP Singapore Pte Ltd (Defendant, Respondent)Lost	30 May 2021	BP Singapore Pte Ltd (Defendant, Respondent): Appeal DismissedBP's appeal was dismissed, and the Bank's claims against it were reinstated.
15	HTL International Holdings: Upholding Judicial Manager's Asset Sale Decision 14 Apr 2021 Golden Hill Capital Pte Ltd (Other)Won	14 Apr 2021	Golden Hill Capital Pte Ltd (Other): Costs AwardedCosts of S$18,000 awarded to the Phua Group (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
16	Ong Ming Johnson v Attorney-General: Challenge to Section 377A Fails 29 Mar 2020 Choong Chee Hong (Plaintiff)Lost	29 Mar 2020	Choong Chee Hong (Plaintiff): Application DismissedApplication to declare s 377A unconstitutional was dismissed.
17	Liew Kit Fah v Koh Keng Chew: Share Valuation Dispute in Minority Shareholder Buyout 26 Nov 2019 Koh Hoon Lye (Respondent)Lost	26 Nov 2019	Koh Hoon Lye (Respondent): Appeal Allowed AgainstThe independent valuer is to re-value the respondents’ shares in the Samwoh Group taking into account the discount for lack of control. The independent valuer is free to decide whether the discount for lack of marketability should apply in re-valuing the respondents’ shares in the Samwoh Group. In the event the independent valuer’s re-valuation of the respondents’ shares in the Samwoh Group returns a value less than that in its 3 August 2018 report, the respondents are to refund the appellants the difference between the sum that they were bought out with and the re-valued price of their shares in the Samwoh Group.
18	Qroi Ltd v Ian Pascoe: Breach of Warranty of Authority Dispute 20 Feb 2019 Ian Pascoe (Defendant, Appellant)Lost	20 Feb 2019	Ian Pascoe (Defendant, Appellant): Appeal DismissedThe first defendant's appeal against the dismissal of his application to strike out the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.
19	Ivanishvili v Credit Suisse: Forum Non Conveniens & Exclusive Jurisdiction in Trust Dispute 17 Jan 2019 Credit Suisse AG (Defendant)Won	17 Jan 2019	Credit Suisse AG (Defendant): Application for Stay GrantedApplication for stay of proceedings granted.
20	Technigroup v Singh: Civil Contempt & Sentencing for Discovery Order Breach 17 Apr 2017 Jaswinderpal Singh s/o Bachint Singh (Defendant)Lost	17 Apr 2017	Jaswinderpal Singh s/o Bachint Singh (Defendant): Found in contempt of courtFound in contempt of court and sentenced to four months' imprisonment, suspended for four weeks.
21	SIC College v Yeo: Improper Evidence Rejection & Security for Costs in Civil Procedure 21 Jan 2016 LINCOLN COLLEGIATE OF BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED (Respondent, Defendant)Lost	21 Jan 2016	LINCOLN COLLEGIATE OF BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED (Respondent, Defendant): Appeal allowedAppeal allowed; retrial ordered for the counterclaim.
22	SIC College v Yeo Poh Siah: Counterclaim for Advances & Non-Party Costs 17 May 2015 LINCOLN COLLEGIATE OF BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED (Defendant)Neutral	17 May 2015	LINCOLN COLLEGIATE OF BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED (Defendant): NeutralNo specific outcome mentioned for this party.