K Shanmugam

K Shanmugam is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2000 to 2008. The lawyer has handled 38 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 3 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in credit and security and criminal law. Their track record shows a 55.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 15 complex cases, representing 39% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

K Shanmugam has demonstrated expertise across 164 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and breach of contract.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	29 cases	9% of total caseload	Experienced61% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 29 cases which represents 9% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	13 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced71% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 13 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Property Law	11 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced54% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 11 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Company Law	10 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice43% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 10 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Misrepresentation	9 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice42% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 9 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Estoppel	9 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice39% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 9 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Commercial Disputes	8 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice39% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 8 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	7 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice41% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 7 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Fraud and Deceit	7 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 7 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Credit and Security	6 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized77% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 6 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Banking and Finance	6 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced69% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 6 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	5 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice48% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 5 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Corporate Law	5 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice33% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 5 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Damages	4 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Agency Law	4 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice34% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 4 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Banking Law	4 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced72% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	4 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice48% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 4 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Evidence	4 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice49% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 4 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Criminal Law	4 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized76% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Strata Title Law	3 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Bankruptcy	3 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice47% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Business Law	3 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice27% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Construction Law	3 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice38% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
En Bloc Sales	3 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized88% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Criminal Procedure	3 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized78% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Guarantee	3 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice43% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Mortgage	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced63% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Fiduciary Duties	2 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Contracts	2 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice35% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Consultancy Agreement	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Negligence	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Mortgage Law	2 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice43% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Summary Judgement	2 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice25% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Banker’s set-off	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Sentencing	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Restitution	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized83% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Commercial Law	2 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Taxation	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Family Law	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Employment Law	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced58% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Fraudulent Conveyance	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Easements	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized88% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Banking Litigation	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Injunctions	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	K Shanmugam 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	Experienced68% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Unjust Enrichment	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized78% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Intention to create legal relations	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Change of position	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Sale of Land	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Legal Profession Act	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Statutory Demand	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Investment Fraud	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice15% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Remedies	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Breach of Trust	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Functus Officio	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Trust Law	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Breach of Duty of Care	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Foreign Exchange Management Act	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Implied term	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice35% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Lifting corporate veil	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Medical Negligence	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Specific performance	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Strata Titles	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Companies Act	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Judicial Review	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Assessment of Damages	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Shareholders Agreement	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Matrimonial Assets	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Division of Assets	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Conflict of Laws	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Appeal	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Contractual Interpretation	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Matrimonial Assets Division	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Joinder	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Equity of Redemption	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Sale and Purchase Agreement	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Breach of Warranty	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Repudiatory breach	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Betting, Gaming and Lotteries	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Bills of Exchange	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Nuisance	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Loans of money	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Guarantees and indemnities	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Guarantor	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Sham Contract	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Locus Standi	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Piercing corporate veil	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Compromise Agreement	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Standard of Care	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Statements of Intention	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Oral agreements	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Rules of natural justice	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Joint Venture Agreement	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Moneylending Law	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Conclusive Evidence Clause	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Association Law	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Relief Against Forfeiture	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Minority Shareholders Rights	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Mistake of Law	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Income Tax Board of Review	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Best Endeavours Clause	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Financial Assistance	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Pledge of Shares	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Duty of Pledgee	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Undervalue Sale	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Reflective Loss	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Certificate of registration of charge	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Diminution in Value	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Loss of Amenity	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Put Option	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Entrustment of property	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Salesmen’s puff	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Compromise	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Assumption of Risk	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Share Forfeiture	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Tag-along Rights	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Rights of Support	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Letters of Awareness	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Asset Protection	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Asset Recovery	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Business Litigation	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Casinos and Gambling	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Chancery and Equity	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Commercial Fraud	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Commercial Litigation	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Constitutional Law	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Corporate Governance	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Corporate Litigation	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Divorce	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Financial Services Law	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Insurance	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Litigation	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Mortgages	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Personal Injury	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Pleadings	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Real Estate	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Securities	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Striking Out Applications	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Telecommunications Law	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Torts	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
White Collar Crime	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Wrongful Termination	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Conspiracy by Unlawful Means	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Measure of Damages	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Evidence Law	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Ad Hoc Admission	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Share Pledge	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Jurisdiction	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Contractual terms	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Natural justice	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Admissibility of evidence	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Director's Liability	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Damages Assessment	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Misappropriation	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Prevention of Corruption Act	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Apparent bias	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Professional conduct	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Formation of contract	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Revenue Law	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Income taxation	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Implied Terms	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Costs	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Waiver	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	K Shanmugam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

K Shanmugam has been affiliated with 3 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 19 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Allen & Gledhill	19 cases	50% of cases	Beckkett v Deutsche Bank: Duty of Pledgee, Undervalue Sale of Shares, and Conspiracy Claim(Sep 2007) Pertamina Energy Trading v Credit Suisse: Fraudulent Drawdown & Banker's Set-Off(Aug 2006) PP v Lew Syn Pau: Financial Assistance for Share Acquisition & Corporate Veil(Aug 2006)
Allen and Gledhill	14 cases	37% of cases	Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd v Credit Suisse: Banker's Set-Off and Authority to Draw Down on Credit Facility(Jan 2006) Raffles Town Club v Tan Chin Seng: Damages for Breach of Contract & Club Membership Value(Aug 2005) Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG: Discovery, Implied Undertaking, Mortgage of Personal Property, Shares(Jul 2005)
Allen & Gledhill LLP	5 cases	13% of cases	Lo Pui Sang v Mamata Kapildev Dave: En Bloc Sale of Horizon Towers - Constitutional & Good Faith Challenges(Jul 2008) Raffles Town Club v Comptroller of Income Tax: Judicial Review of Income Tax Board of Review Appointment(Mar 2008) Travista Development v Tan Kim Swee: Breach of Contract & 'Best Endeavours' in Property Sale(Dec 2007)

Case Complexity Analysis

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

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 4.7
Complex Cases: 15 (39%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	124.5 parties avg	4.5	32%
Neutral	48.5 parties avg	8.5	11%
Partial	26.5 parties avg	6.5	5%
Won	224.0 parties avg	4.0	58%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2000	34.0 parties avg	4.0
2001	32.0 parties avg	2.0
2002	45.0 parties avg	5.0
2003	54.7 parties avg	4.7
2004	43.3 parties avg	3.3
2005	84.9 parties avg	4.9
2006	52.8 parties avg	2.8
2007	410.3 parties avg	10.3
2008	23.5 parties avg	3.5

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	12(30%)	30%
Neutral	4(10%)	10%
Partial	2(5%)	5%
Won	22(55%)	55%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
AUD	7,000,000.00	7,000,000.001 cases	1
SGD	418,986.82	23,277.0518 cases	18

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2000	3 21	Lost: 2 cases (66.7%) Won: 1 cases (33.3%)
2001	3 12	Lost: 1 cases (33.3%) Won: 2 cases (66.7%)
2002	5 14	Neutral: 1 cases (20.0%) Won: 4 cases (80.0%)
2003	6 42	Lost: 4 cases (66.7%) Won: 2 cases (33.3%)
2004	4 4	Won: 4 cases (100.0%)
2005	8 215	Lost: 2 cases (25.0%) Partial: 1 cases (12.5%) Won: 5 cases (62.5%)
2006	5 14	Lost: 1 cases (20.0%) Won: 4 cases (80.0%)
2007	4 22	Lost: 2 cases (50.0%) Neutral: 2 cases (50.0%)
2008	2 11	Neutral: 1 cases (50.0%) Partial: 1 cases (50.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 38 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Lo Pui Sang v Mamata Kapildev Dave: En Bloc Sale of Horizon Towers - Constitutional & Good Faith Challenges 16 Jul 2008 Horizon Partners Pte Ltd (Intervener)Neutral	16 Jul 2008	Horizon Partners Pte Ltd (Intervener): Intervention SuccessfulThe court dismissed the appeals, allowing the en bloc sale to proceed.
2	Raffles Town Club v Comptroller of Income Tax: Judicial Review of Income Tax Board of Review Appointment 31 Mar 2008 Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd (Applicant)Partial	31 Mar 2008	Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd (Applicant): Application allowed in partThe court declared that section 79(3) does not prevent a party from seeking judicial review and that Mr. Chew had a connection with the Club that could give rise to questions concerning his impartiality.
3	Travista Development v Tan Kim Swee: Breach of Contract & 'Best Endeavours' in Property Sale 30 Dec 2007 Travista Development Pte Ltd (Appellant)Lost	30 Dec 2007	Travista Development Pte Ltd (Appellant): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed with costs and the usual consequential orders. The judgment does not specify a monetary amount. The currency is assumed to be SGD, the currency of Singapore.
4	Siow Doreen v Lo Pui Sang: Collective Sale Agreement Validity & Strata Titles Board Powers 10 Oct 2007 Horizon Partners Pte Ltd (First Intervener)Neutral	10 Oct 2007	Horizon Partners Pte Ltd (First Intervener): NeutralThe intervener's position was noted but no specific outcome was assigned.
5	Siow Doreen v Lo Pui Sang: Application for En Bloc Sale Intervention 30 Sep 2007 Horizon Partners Pte Ltd (Applicant)Neutral	30 Sep 2007	Horizon Partners Pte Ltd (Applicant): OtherApplication to intervene allowed.
6	Beckkett v Deutsche Bank: Duty of Pledgee, Undervalue Sale of Shares, and Conspiracy Claim 20 Sep 2007 Deutsche Bank AG (Defendant)Lost	20 Sep 2007	Deutsche Bank AG (Defendant): Counterclaim DismissedDeutsche Bank's counterclaim against Beckkett was dismissed.
7	Pertamina Energy Trading v Credit Suisse: Fraudulent Drawdown & Banker's Set-Off 14 Aug 2006 Credit Suisse (Respondent)Won	14 Aug 2006	Credit Suisse (Respondent): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed in favour of the respondent with costs (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
8	PP v Lew Syn Pau: Financial Assistance for Share Acquisition & Corporate Veil 10 Aug 2006 Wong Sheung Sze (Defendant)Won	10 Aug 2006	Wong Sheung Sze (Defendant): AcquittedAcquitted of the charge of knowingly and wilfully authorizing the company to indirectly give financial assistance.
9	GYC Financial Planning v Prudential: Oral Contract Breach & CMA Termination 27 Apr 2006 Prudential Assurance Company Singapore (Pte) Ltd (Defendant)Won	27 Apr 2006	Prudential Assurance Company Singapore (Pte) Ltd (Defendant): Judgment for DefendantThe court found in favor of the defendant, Prudential Assurance Company Singapore (Pte) Ltd, dismissing all claims made by the plaintiffs.
10	T Ltd v Comptroller of Income Tax: Deduction of Interest on Loans for Land Purchase 29 Mar 2006 T Ltd (Appellant)Lost	29 Mar 2006	T Ltd (Appellant): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed with costs.
11	Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd v Credit Suisse: Banker's Set-Off and Authority to Draw Down on Credit Facility 15 Jan 2006 Credit Suisse (Defendant)Won	15 Jan 2006	Credit Suisse (Defendant): Judgment for DefendantThe court found in favor of the defendant, dismissing the plaintiff's claim.
12	Raffles Town Club v Tan Chin Seng: Damages for Breach of Contract & Club Membership Value 22 Aug 2005 Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd (Appellant, Respondent)Partial	22 Aug 2005	Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd (Appellant, Respondent): Appeal Allowed in PartAppeal allowed in part, with no compensation under the second head of claim. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
13	Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG: Discovery, Implied Undertaking, Mortgage of Personal Property, Shares 11 Jul 2005 Deutsche Bank AG (Respondent)Won	11 Jul 2005	Deutsche Bank AG (Respondent): Appeal DismissedDeutsche Bank successfully defended against the appeal, preventing Beckkett from using the discovered documents in Indonesia.
14	Jurong Town Corp v Wishing Star Ltd: Misrepresentation & Contract Rescission in Construction Project 12 May 2005 Jurong Town Corp (Appellant)Won	12 May 2005	Jurong Town Corp (Appellant): Appeal AllowedAppeal allowed; contract validly terminated; damages to be assessed by the Registrar (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
15	Ng Bok Eng Holdings v Wong Ser Wan: Fraudulent Conveyance & Creditor's Rights 27 Apr 2005 Wong Ser Wan (Respondent)Won	27 Apr 2005	Wong Ser Wan (Respondent): Judgment for RespondentThe Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision to annul the transfers, finding that Mr. Ng intended to defraud Mdm Wong, and the appellants had notice of this intent. The court varied the order for account of rental and profits to be effective from the date Mr. Ng was made a bankrupt. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
16	Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG: Discovery, Implied Undertaking, and Use of Documents in Indonesian Proceedings 21 Apr 2005 Deutsche Bank AG (Defendant, Respondent)Won	21 Apr 2005	Deutsche Bank AG (Defendant, Respondent): Appeal allowedDeutsche Bank AG's appeal against the order allowing Beckkett to use documents in Indonesian proceedings was allowed, with Beckkett ordered to pay costs. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
17	Teh Guek Ngor Engelin v Chia Ee Lin: Wrongful Termination of Consultancy Agreement Dispute 05 Apr 2005 Chia Ee Lin Evelyn (Respondent)Won	05 Apr 2005	Chia Ee Lin Evelyn (Respondent): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed in favor of the respondent. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
18	Tan Chin Seng v Raffles Town Club: Damages for Breach of Contract & Loss of Club Amenity 22 Feb 2005 Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd (Defendant)Lost	22 Feb 2005	Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd (Defendant): Judgment against defendantJudgment against the defendant; damages awarded to the plaintiffs in the total amount of $10,000 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
19	Ong Beng Leong v Public Prosecutor: Prevention of Corruption Act & Use of False Documents 31 Jan 2005 Ong Beng Leong (Appellant)Lost	31 Jan 2005	Ong Beng Leong (Appellant): Appeal against conviction dismissedThe appellant's appeal against his conviction was dismissed.
20	Liao Eng Kiat v Burswood Nominees Ltd: Enforcement of Foreign Judgment on Dishonoured Cheque for Gambling Debt 04 Oct 2004 Burswood Nominees Ltd (Respondent)Won	04 Oct 2004	Burswood Nominees Ltd (Respondent): Registration of Australian judgment upheldBurswood was entitled to the registration of the Australian judgment.
21	Wong Ser Wan v Ng Bok Eng Holdings: Fraudulent Conveyance & Creditor's Rights 05 Sep 2004 Wong Ser Wan (Plaintiff)Won	05 Sep 2004	Wong Ser Wan (Plaintiff): Application allowedThe court held that Mdm Wong was entitled to bring the action in her own name and granted her leave to do so. The currency is assumed to be SGD, the currency of Singapore.
22	Chia Ee Lin Evelyn v Teh Guek Ngor Engelin: Breach of Contract & Oral Agreements 01 Sep 2004 Chia Ee Lin Evelyn (Plaintiff)Won	01 Sep 2004	Chia Ee Lin Evelyn (Plaintiff): Judgment for PlaintiffJudgment for the plaintiff on her claims, as verified later. The amount owing to the plaintiff is $408,986.82. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
23	Wong Ser Wan v Ng Bok Eng: Fraudulent Conveyance & Matrimonial Asset Division 18 Aug 2004 Wong Ser Wan (Plaintiff)Won	18 Aug 2004	Wong Ser Wan (Plaintiff): Claim AllowedThe plaintiff's claim to void the transfer of the Mountbatten property and NBEH shares was allowed. (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore)
24	Mak Chik Lun v Loh Kim Her: Enforceability of Deed of Settlement under Moneylenders Act 24 Sep 2003 Katell Investment Co Pte Ltd (Plaintiff)Won	24 Sep 2003	Katell Investment Co Pte Ltd (Plaintiff): Application AllowedPlaintiffs’ application to exclude certain affidavits of evidence-in-chief allowed.
25	CDIB Venture Investment v Soeryadjaya: Put Option Dispute in Share Purchase Agreement 14 Sep 2003 Bradley Fraser (Defendant)Lost	14 Sep 2003	Bradley Fraser (Defendant): Judgment Against DefendantJudgment against the defendant regarding the JGL shares; A$7 million payable for the transfer of the JGL shares back to the defendants.
26	Viswanathan Ramachandran v PP: Criminal Breach of Trust & Entrustment of Property Proceeds 25 Aug 2003 Viswanathan Ramachandran (Appellant)Lost	25 Aug 2003	Viswanathan Ramachandran (Appellant): Appeal DismissedAppellant's appeal against conviction was dismissed.
27	Tan Chin Seng v Raffles Town Club: Misrepresentation & Breach of Contract in Club Membership 10 Aug 2003 Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd (Respondent)Lost	10 Aug 2003	Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd (Respondent): Appeal AllowedAppeal allowed; found in breach of contract.
28	Lim Mong Hong v PP: Appeal on Cheating Conviction & Sentence under Penal Code s 420 21 Jul 2003 Lim Mong Hong (Appellant)Lost	21 Jul 2003	Lim Mong Hong (Appellant): Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissedAppeal against conviction and sentence dismissed. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
29	Tan Chin Seng v Raffles Town Club: Misrepresentation & Breach of Contract in Club Membership 21 Nov 2002 Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd (Defendant)Won	21 Nov 2002	Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd (Defendant): Judgment for DefendantClaims for misrepresentation and breach of contract dismissed with costs (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
30	SingTel v IDA: Ad Hoc Admission of Queen's Counsel in Restitution Claim for Mistake of Law 07 Jul 2002 SINGAPORE TELECOMMUNICATIONS LIMITED (Defendant)Neutral	07 Jul 2002	SINGAPORE TELECOMMUNICATIONS LIMITED (Defendant): NeutralThe outcome for SingTel in the underlying suit is pending.
31	IDA v SingTel: Restitution for Mistake of Law in Telecom License Modification Compensation 29 May 2002 Singapore Telecommunications Ltd (Defendant)Won	29 May 2002	Singapore Telecommunications Ltd (Defendant): Judgment for DefendantJudgment in favour of the defendant. The judgment does not specify a currency, so the currency of the jurisdiction (Singapore) is assumed.
32	Khoo James v Gunapathy: Medical Negligence, Bolam Test & Brain Tumour Radiosurgery 12 May 2002 Neurological Surgery Pte Ltd (Defendant)Won	12 May 2002	Neurological Surgery Pte Ltd (Defendant): Appeal AllowedThe appeal against the High Court's decision was allowed.
33	Lau Ah Lang v Chan Huang Seng: Validity of Zu-Lin Temple Association EOGM & Management Committee Election 09 Jul 2001 Lau Ah Lang (Plaintiff)Won	09 Jul 2001	Lau Ah Lang (Plaintiff): Judgment for PlaintiffJudgment for the plaintiff; the appointment of the defendants as the seventh management committee was declared null and void.
34	Frontfield v MCST 938: Easement Extinguishment for Right of Way Abandonment 29 Jun 2001 Frontfield Investment Holding (Pte) Ltd (Plaintiff)Won	29 Jun 2001	Frontfield Investment Holding (Pte) Ltd (Plaintiff): Judgment for PlaintiffDeclaration that the right of way and passage and all other rights and easements appurtenant to land marked on the Government Resurvey Map as Lot 5915X (being part of the former Lot 120-12) of Mukim 26 subsisting over that piece of land marked on the Government Resurvey Map as Lot 98082L (formerly known as Lot 120-13) of Mukim 26 have been extinguished.
35	Nomura Regionalisation Venture Fund Ltd v Ethical Investments Ltd: Relief Against Forfeiture of Shares 30 May 2001 Nomura Regionalisation Venture Fund Ltd (Plaintiff, Respondent)Lost	30 May 2001	Nomura Regionalisation Venture Fund Ltd (Plaintiff, Respondent): Appeal allowedThe appeal against the decision of the learned Assistant Registrar in dismissing their summons in chambers was allowed.
36	Canadian Imperial v Pacific Century: Breach of Tag-Along Clause in Joint Venture Agreement 17 Sep 2000 Pacific Century Regional Developments Limited (Defendant)Lost	17 Sep 2000	Pacific Century Regional Developments Limited (Defendant): Claim DismissedDefendant found in breach of contract and ordered to pay damages and costs to the plaintiff (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
37	Xpress Print v Monocrafts: Right of Support for Buildings & Negligence in Excavation 23 Jul 2000 Xpress Print Pte Ltd (Appellant)Won	23 Jul 2000	Xpress Print Pte Ltd (Appellant): Appeal allowedAppeal allowed with costs; matter remitted to Registrar for assessment of damages (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
38	Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp v Jurong Engineering: Letter of Awareness, Authority, Contractual Intent 10 Feb 2000 Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd (Plaintiff)Lost	10 Feb 2000	Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd (Plaintiff): Claim DismissedThe plaintiffs' claim was dismissed with costs. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.