Joseph Ignatius

Joseph Ignatius is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2011 to 2024. The lawyer has handled 11 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 1 law firm. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in building and construction industry security of payment act and misrepresentation. Their track record shows a 42.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 3 complex cases, representing 27% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Joseph Ignatius has demonstrated expertise across 46 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and civil procedure.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	8 cases	11% of total caseload	Experienced73% relevance score	Joseph Ignatius has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 8 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	4 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced56% relevance score	Joseph Ignatius has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Conspiracy by Unlawful Means	3 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced73% relevance score	Joseph Ignatius has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Construction Law	3 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced73% relevance score	Joseph Ignatius has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Estoppel	3 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced54% relevance score	Joseph Ignatius has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act	2 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Joseph Ignatius has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Torts	2 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced52% relevance score	Joseph Ignatius has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	2 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Joseph Ignatius has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Evidence Law	2 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Joseph Ignatius has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Misrepresentation	2 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized83% relevance score	Joseph Ignatius has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Fraud and Deceit	2 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized88% relevance score	Joseph Ignatius has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Property Law	2 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice42% relevance score	Joseph Ignatius has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Chancery and Equity	2 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced63% relevance score	Joseph Ignatius has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Unjust Enrichment	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Joseph Ignatius has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Mortgage	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Joseph Ignatius has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Stay of Execution	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Joseph Ignatius has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Property Disputes	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Joseph Ignatius 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	General Practice20% relevance score	Joseph Ignatius has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Constructive trusts	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Joseph Ignatius has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Limitation	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Joseph Ignatius has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Restitution	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Joseph Ignatius has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Stay of Proceedings	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Joseph Ignatius has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Conversion	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Joseph Ignatius has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Involuntary Bailment	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Joseph Ignatius has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Trust Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Joseph Ignatius has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Judgments and Orders	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Joseph Ignatius has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Mistake	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Joseph Ignatius 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	Experienced50% relevance score	Joseph Ignatius has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Statutory Interpretation	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Joseph Ignatius has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Summary Judgement	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Joseph Ignatius has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Company Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Joseph Ignatius has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Adjudication Determination	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Joseph Ignatius has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Bankruptcy	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Joseph Ignatius 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	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Joseph Ignatius has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Building and Construction Contracts	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Joseph Ignatius has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Joseph Ignatius has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Corporate Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Joseph Ignatius has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Credit and Security	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Joseph Ignatius has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Proprietary Estoppel	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Joseph Ignatius has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Resulting Trusts	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Joseph Ignatius has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Fiduciary Duties	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Joseph Ignatius has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Estate Administration	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Joseph Ignatius has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Commercial Disputes	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Joseph Ignatius has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Non est factum	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Joseph Ignatius has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Construction	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Joseph Ignatius has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Contractual terms	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Joseph Ignatius has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Joseph Ignatius has been affiliated with 1 law firm. The most active affiliation involves 11 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Ignatius J & Associates	11 cases	100% of cases	Tan Cheng Cheng v Shamlal: Conversion & Estate Admin of Richard Mille Watch(Jul 2024) Cradle Wealth Solutions v MTN Consultants: Enforcing Settlement Agreement & Sham Defense(Oct 2023) Prime Cars Leasing v Zenith Automobile: Breach of Director's Duties & Conspiracy(Nov 2021)

Case Complexity Analysis

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

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 3.8
Complex Cases: 3 (27%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	62.6 parties avg	2.6	55%
Partial	17.0 parties avg	7.0	9%
Won	54.6 parties avg	4.6	45%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2011	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2016	22.7 parties avg	2.7
2017	22.5 parties avg	2.5
2020	15.0 parties avg	5.0
2021	34.8 parties avg	4.8
2023	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2024	15.0 parties avg	5.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	6(50%)	50%
Partial	1(8%)	8%
Won	5(42%)	42%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	401,145.55	50,143.198 cases	8
USD	8,000,000.00	8,000,000.001 cases	1

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2011	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2016	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2017	2 2	Lost: 2 cases (100.0%)
2020	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2021	4 112	Lost: 1 cases (25.0%) Partial: 1 cases (25.0%) Won: 2 cases (50.0%)
2023	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2024	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 11 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Tan Cheng Cheng v Shamlal: Conversion & Estate Admin of Richard Mille Watch 11 Jul 2024 Shamlal s/o Tuppani Bisaysar (Respondent)Won	11 Jul 2024	Shamlal s/o Tuppani Bisaysar (Respondent): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed in favour of the respondent; costs of the appeal to be paid by the appellants (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
2	Cradle Wealth Solutions v MTN Consultants: Enforcing Settlement Agreement & Sham Defense 26 Oct 2023 Nazarisham bin Mohamed Isa (Defendant)Lost	26 Oct 2023	Nazarisham bin Mohamed Isa (Defendant): Claim DismissedDefendants are ordered to pay Cradle Wealth the sum of US$4,000,000.00 plus pre- and post-judgment interest at 5.33% per annum from the date of the Writ (ie, 24 August 2020), with costs to be agreed or taxed.
3	Prime Cars Leasing v Zenith Automobile: Breach of Director's Duties & Conspiracy 18 Nov 2021 Lim Siew Ling (Defendant)Partial	18 Nov 2021	Lim Siew Ling (Defendant): Claim dismissed in part; counterclaim dismissedClaim against Lim Siew Ling dismissed in part; counterclaim dismissed. Ordered to return $158,678.70 to PCL. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
4	Yim Lok Foong Elsie v Asia First Star Capital: Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Conspiracy, and Contract Breach 28 Jun 2021 Yim Lok Foong Elsie (Plaintiff)Won	28 Jun 2021	Yim Lok Foong Elsie (Plaintiff): Judgment for PlaintiffJudgment for the Plaintiff; damages awarded in the amount of $390,000 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
5	Yusoff Shah v Taufiq Abdul Halim: Setting Aside Default Judgment for Debt Acknowledgment 25 Apr 2021 Muhammad Taufiq Abdul Halim (Defendant, Plaintiff in counterclaim)Lost	25 Apr 2021	Muhammad Taufiq Abdul Halim (Defendant, Plaintiff in counterclaim): Application dismissedDefendant's application to set aside the default judgment was dismissed.
6	Changi Makan v Development 2003: Fraudulent Misrepresentation & Conspiracy in Property Sale 06 Feb 2020 Mohamed Haneefa Iqbal (Defendant)Won	06 Feb 2020	Mohamed Haneefa Iqbal (Defendant): Claims DismissedThe plaintiff's claims against the fourth defendant were dismissed.
7	UOB v Pereira: Stay of Execution in Mortgage Action & Guarantor's Obligations 30 Mar 2017 Pereira, Dennis John Sunny (Defendant, Appellant)Lost	30 Mar 2017	Pereira, Dennis John Sunny (Defendant, Appellant): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed; costs of the appeal fixed at $2,500 with reasonable disbursements to be paid by Mr Pereira to UOB. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
8	Lim Poh Yeoh v TS Ong Construction: Stay of Proceedings for Non-Payment of Costs and Judgment Debt 30 Jan 2017 Lim Poh Yeoh (alias Aster Lim) (Plaintiff, Respondent)Lost	30 Jan 2017	Lim Poh Yeoh (alias Aster Lim) (Plaintiff, Respondent): Appeal dismissed; proceedings stayed unless outstanding costs and judgment debt are paid.Appeal against the decision of the Assistant Registrar to stay Suit 92 was dismissed. The Plaintiff was given one month to satisfy the outstanding costs orders and the Judgment Debt in OS 381, failing which all proceedings in Suit 92 were to be stayed. Currency assumed to be SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
9	Sumoi Paramesvaeri v Fleury Jeffrey Gerard: Property Rights & Trusts Dispute 01 Sep 2016 Uma Davi d/o Ponnusamy @ Mrs Fleury Jeffrey Gerard (Defendant, Plaintiff)Lost	01 Sep 2016	Uma Davi d/o Ponnusamy @ Mrs Fleury Jeffrey Gerard (Defendant, Plaintiff): Counterclaim DismissedDefendants' counterclaim is dismissed. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
10	Lim Poh Yeoh v TS Ong Construction: Setting Aside Statutory Demand Under SOPA for Building & Construction Law Dispute 31 Aug 2016 Lim Poh Yeoh (alias Lim Aster) (Appellant)Won	31 Aug 2016	Lim Poh Yeoh (alias Lim Aster) (Appellant): Appeal AllowedAppeal allowed and statutory demand set aside. Costs of the appeal and proceedings below fixed at $10,000 (inclusive of disbursements). Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
11	Fongsoon Engineering v Kensteel Engineering: Sub-Contract Works Dispute 05 Apr 2011 Fongsoon Engineering (S) Pte Ltd (Plaintiff)Lost	05 Apr 2011	Fongsoon Engineering (S) Pte Ltd (Plaintiff): Liable to the defendant under its CounterclaimPlaintiff is liable to the defendant under its Counterclaim for the sums of $69,911.13, $32,400.00, and $27,955.58 (being the cost of providing extra workers to make up for the delay caused by the plaintiff’s slow progress, the cost of welding 12 lifting padeye box stiffeners, and the cost of rectifying the defective flooring, respectively). This adds up to a total figure of $130,266.71. After setting off the figures in (a) and (b), the plaintiff has to pay the defendant a sum of $8,645.55. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.