Kendall Tan

Kendall Tan is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2000 to 2019. The lawyer has handled 9 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 4 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in admiralty and maritime law and shipping law. Their track record shows a 67.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 2 complex cases, representing 22% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Kendall Tan has demonstrated expertise across 51 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and breach of contract.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	9 cases	11% of total caseload	Experienced56% relevance score	Kendall Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 9 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	7 cases	9% of total caseload	Experienced64% relevance score	Kendall Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 7 cases which represents 9% of their total caseload.
Arbitration	4 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced63% relevance score	Kendall Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Property Law	3 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Kendall Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Admiralty and Maritime Law	3 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Kendall Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Commercial Disputes	2 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Kendall Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Summary Judgement	2 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Kendall Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	2 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Kendall Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Damages	2 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice48% relevance score	Kendall Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Shipping Law	2 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized83% relevance score	Kendall Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Jurisdiction	2 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced62% relevance score	Kendall Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Pathological arbitration clause	2 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Kendall Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
International Commercial Law	2 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice47% relevance score	Kendall Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Estoppel	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Kendall 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	General Practice30% relevance score	Kendall Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Carriage of goods by sea	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Kendall Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Approbation and Reprobation	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Kendall Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Evidence	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Kendall Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Wrongful arrest	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Kendall Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Company Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Kendall Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Bills of Lading	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Kendall Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Detinue	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Kendall Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Mortgage Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Kendall Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Forum election	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Kendall Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Lis alibi pendens	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Kendall Tan 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 Specialized90% relevance score	Kendall Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Guarantor	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Kendall Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Solicitor's duties	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Kendall Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Material non-disclosure	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Kendall Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Restraint of Proceedings	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Kendall Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Hybrid arbitration	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	Kendall Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Securities Industry Act	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Kendall Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Chattel Mortgage	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Kendall Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
In Rem Action	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Kendall Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Wrongful Delivery	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Kendall Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Recovery of Debt	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Kendall Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Salesmen’s puff	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Kendall Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Misleading Information	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Kendall Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Legal Profession	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Kendall Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Arrest of Vessel	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Kendall Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Collections	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Kendall Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Commercial Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Kendall Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Forum Non Conveniens	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Kendall 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	Experienced65% relevance score	Kendall Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Kendall Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Security for Costs	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	Kendall Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Winding Up	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Kendall Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Misrepresentation	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Kendall 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	Experienced70% relevance score	Kendall Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Admiralty Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Kendall Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Costs	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Kendall Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Kendall Tan has been affiliated with 4 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 3 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Rajah & Tann LLP	3 cases	33% of cases	Belbana N.V. v APL Co Pte Ltd: Forum Election, Lis Alibi Pendens & Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause in Shipping Contract(Aug 2014) HKL Group Co Ltd v Rizq International Holdings: Stay of Proceedings and Security for Costs in Pathological Arbitration Clause Dispute(Mar 2013) HKL Group Co Ltd v Rizq International Holdings Pte Ltd: Stay of Proceedings & Arbitration Clause Interpretation(Feb 2013)
Rajah & Tann	3 cases	33% of cases	Ong & Co Pte Ltd v Lai Siew Ping Vivien: Indemnity Clause Validity for Stockbroker's Dealer(Nov 2001) Law Society of Singapore v Arjan Chotrani Bisham: Solicitor's Misconduct and Failure to Deliver Documents(Feb 2001) UOB v Sim Marine: Mortgagee's Claim for Vessel Delivery & Damages for Detinue(Sep 2000)
Rajah and Tann	2 cases	22% of cases	Treasure Valley Group Ltd v Saputra Teddy: Admiralty Jurisdiction, Vessel Arrest & Approbation/Reprobation(Nov 2005) Intercontinental Specialty Fats Berhad v Bandung Shipping: Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence in Damages Assessment(Jan 2004)
Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP	1 cases	11% of cases	BWF v BWG: Restraining Winding Up Proceedings for Disputed Debt Subject to Arbitration(Mar 2019)

Case Complexity Analysis

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

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 2.6
Complex Cases: 2 (22%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Dismissed	12.0 parties avg	2.0	11%
Lost	14.0 parties avg	4.0	11%
Neutral	12.0 parties avg	2.0	11%
Won	62.6 parties avg	2.6	67%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2000	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2001	22.0 parties avg	2.0
2004	14.0 parties avg	4.0
2005	14.0 parties avg	4.0
2013	22.0 parties avg	2.0
2014	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2019	12.0 parties avg	2.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Dismissed	1(11%)	11%
Lost	1(11%)	11%
Neutral	1(11%)	11%
Won	6(67%)	67%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	760,062.00	152,012.405 cases	5
USD	560,000.00	560,000.001 cases	1

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2000	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2001	2 2	Won: 2 cases (100.0%)
2004	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2005	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2013	2 11	Dismissed: 1 cases (50.0%) Neutral: 1 cases (50.0%)
2014	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2019	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 9 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	BWF v BWG: Restraining Winding Up Proceedings for Disputed Debt Subject to Arbitration 25 Mar 2019 BWF (Plaintiff, Respondent)Won	25 Mar 2019	BWF (Plaintiff, Respondent): Injunction grantedInjunction granted to restrain BWG from taking out winding-up proceedings. Costs fixed at $40,000 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
2	Belbana N.V. v APL Co Pte Ltd: Forum Election, Lis Alibi Pendens & Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause in Shipping Contract 14 Aug 2014 Another (Defendant)Won	14 Aug 2014	Another (Defendant): SUM 1620 dismissed; SUM 2325 allowed with amendmentsSUM 1620, the Plaintiff's application for stay for lis alibi pendens, was dismissed. SUM 2325, the Defendants’ application for the Court to order the Plaintiff to elect which jurisdiction it wished to proceed under the doctrine of forum election and for the proceedings in the other jurisdiction to be discontinued, was allowed with amendments.
3	HKL Group Co Ltd v Rizq International Holdings: Stay of Proceedings and Security for Costs in Pathological Arbitration Clause Dispute 21 Mar 2013 HKL Group Co Ltd (Plaintiff)Neutral	21 Mar 2013	HKL Group Co Ltd (Plaintiff): Proceedings StayedProceedings stayed in favour of arbitration; no order as to costs (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
4	HKL Group Co Ltd v Rizq International Holdings Pte Ltd: Stay of Proceedings & Arbitration Clause Interpretation 18 Feb 2013 HKL Group Co Ltd (Plaintiff)Dismissed	18 Feb 2013	HKL Group Co Ltd (Plaintiff): Application for default judgment dismissedHKL's application for default judgment was dismissed as the proceedings were stayed in favour of arbitration.
5	Treasure Valley Group Ltd v Saputra Teddy: Admiralty Jurisdiction, Vessel Arrest & Approbation/Reprobation 20 Nov 2005 Treasure Valley Group Ltd (Plaintiff)Lost	20 Nov 2005	Treasure Valley Group Ltd (Plaintiff): Appeal dismissedAppeal dismissed with costs in the cause (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
6	Intercontinental Specialty Fats Berhad v Bandung Shipping: Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence in Damages Assessment 01 Jan 2004 Bandung Shipping Pte Ltd (Defendant)Won	01 Jan 2004	Bandung Shipping Pte Ltd (Defendant): Successful defenseSuccessfully defended against the appeal regarding admissibility of evidence.
7	Ong & Co Pte Ltd v Lai Siew Ping Vivien: Indemnity Clause Validity for Stockbroker's Dealer 28 Nov 2001 Ong & Co Pte Ltd (Plaintiff)Won	28 Nov 2001	Ong & Co Pte Ltd (Plaintiff): Judgment for PlaintiffJudgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $720,062.00 plus interest. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
8	Law Society of Singapore v Arjan Chotrani Bisham: Solicitor's Misconduct and Failure to Deliver Documents 04 Feb 2001 The Law Society of Singapore (Applicant)Won	04 Feb 2001	The Law Society of Singapore (Applicant): Order accordingly.Order accordingly. The judgment does not specify a currency, so SGD is assumed as the currency of the jurisdiction.
9	UOB v Sim Marine: Mortgagee's Claim for Vessel Delivery & Damages for Detinue 18 Sep 2000 United Overseas Bank Limited (Plaintiff)Won	18 Sep 2000	United Overseas Bank Limited (Plaintiff): Judgment for PlaintiffJudgment for the Plaintiff; damages awarded in the amount of $560,000 (USD). This amount includes damages for detention at US$400 per day from 1 September 1998 up to the date of judgment (US$300,000), the value of the vessel as of the date of judgment (US$270,000), less the estimated cost of paying the crew to sail the Vessel back to Singapore and other expenses (US$10,000). The currency is assumed to be USD as the damages were calculated in USD.