Kevin Tan

Kevin Tan is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2014 to 2022. The lawyer has handled 7 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 3 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in criminal law and civil procedure. Their track record shows a 43.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 1 complex case, representing 14% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Kevin Tan has demonstrated expertise across 30 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and criminal law.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	4 cases	11% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	Kevin Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.
Criminal Law	3 cases	8% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Kevin Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	2 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized78% relevance score	Kevin Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Damages	2 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Kevin Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Criminal Procedure	2 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Kevin Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Inducement of Breach of Contract	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Kevin Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Evidence Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Kevin Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Misuse of Drugs Act	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Kevin Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Prevention of Corruption Act	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Kevin Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Foreign Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Kevin Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Set-off	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Kevin Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Costs	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Kevin Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Murder	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Kevin Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Agency Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Kevin Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Statutory Interpretation	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Kevin Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Evidence	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Kevin Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Interest	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Kevin Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Penal Code	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Kevin Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Public Prosecutor	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Kevin Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Consequences of Prosecution’s non-disclosure	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Kevin Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Right of first refusal	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Kevin Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Match-fixing	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Kevin Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Kevin Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Review of Detention	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Kevin Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Kevin Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Re-sentencing	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Kevin Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Arbitration	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Kevin Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Kevin Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Civil Litigation	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Kevin Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Kevin Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

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

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Attorney-General’s Chambers	3 cases	43% of cases	Tan Seet Eng v Attorney-General: Review of Detention under Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act for Match-Fixing(Jan 2015) Muhammad bin Kadar v PP: Re-Sentencing for Murder under Penal Code s 302(Sep 2014) PP v Muhammad Farid: Trafficking in Methamphetamine & Knowledge of Drug Quantity(Jun 2014)
Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP	3 cases	43% of cases	Epoch Minerals Pte Ltd v Raffles Asset Management: Cost Allocation in Fraudulent Inducement Case(Jan 2022) Haribo Asia Pacific v Aquarius Corp: Correction of Contractual Interest Rate in Damages Claim(Dec 2021) Haribo Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Aquarius Corp: Breach of Contract, Damages, and Set-off Dispute(Dec 2021)
WongPartnership LLP	1 cases	14% of cases	Tozzi Srl v Bumi Armada: Right of First Refusal, Contract Formation & Breach(Sep 2017)

Case Complexity Analysis

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

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 2.6
Complex Cases: 1 (14%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	13.0 parties avg	3.0	14%
Partial	32.0 parties avg	2.0	43%
Won	33.0 parties avg	3.0	43%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2014	22.0 parties avg	2.0
2015	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2017	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2021	22.0 parties avg	2.0
2022	15.0 parties avg	5.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	1(14%)	14%
Partial	3(43%)	43%
Won	3(43%)	43%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
KRW	4,280,197,383.00	2,140,098,691.502 cases	2
SGD	308,500.00	154,250.002 cases	2

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2014	2 11	Partial: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2015	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2017	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2021	2 2	Partial: 2 cases (100.0%)
2022	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 7 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Epoch Minerals Pte Ltd v Raffles Asset Management: Cost Allocation in Fraudulent Inducement Case 27 Jan 2022 Epoch Minerals Pte Ltd (Plaintiff)Won	27 Jan 2022	Epoch Minerals Pte Ltd (Plaintiff): Costs awardedCosts of $300,000 plus disbursements awarded against the second to fourth defendants jointly and severally. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
2	Haribo Asia Pacific v Aquarius Corp: Correction of Contractual Interest Rate in Damages Claim 26 Dec 2021 Aquarius Corporation (Defendant, Plaintiff in Counterclaim)Partial	26 Dec 2021	Aquarius Corporation (Defendant, Plaintiff in Counterclaim): Counterclaim allowed in partThe counterclaim was allowed in part, and Haribo Asia Pacific Pte Ltd was ordered to pay Aquarius Corporation ₩1,969,018,000 with judgment interest of 5.33% from August 30, 2018.
3	Haribo Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Aquarius Corp: Breach of Contract, Damages, and Set-off Dispute 01 Dec 2021 Aquarius Corporation (Defendant, Plaintiff in Counterclaim)Partial	01 Dec 2021	Aquarius Corporation (Defendant, Plaintiff in Counterclaim): Counterclaim allowed in partCounterclaim allowed in part for lost profits, with judgment interest from date of Defence and Counterclaim.
4	Tozzi Srl v Bumi Armada: Right of First Refusal, Contract Formation & Breach 20 Sep 2017 Bumi Armada Berhad (Defendant)Lost	20 Sep 2017	Bumi Armada Berhad (Defendant): Claim DismissedClaim dismissed against the defendant with damages to be assessed (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
5	Tan Seet Eng v Attorney-General: Review of Detention under Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act for Match-Fixing 21 Jan 2015 Attorney-General (Respondent)Won	21 Jan 2015	Attorney-General (Respondent): Application dismissedThe Attorney-General successfully opposed the application for an Order for Review of Detention. The Applicant was ordered to pay the Attorney-General costs of $8,500, inclusive of disbursements (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
6	Muhammad bin Kadar v PP: Re-Sentencing for Murder under Penal Code s 302 28 Sep 2014 Public Prosecutor (Respondent)Won	28 Sep 2014	Public Prosecutor (Respondent): Sentence AffirmedThe court affirmed the sentence of death imposed on the applicant.
7	PP v Muhammad Farid: Trafficking in Methamphetamine & Knowledge of Drug Quantity 29 Jun 2014 Public Prosecutor (Prosecution)Partial	29 Jun 2014	Public Prosecutor (Prosecution): PartialThe prosecution's charge was amended, and the accused was convicted on the amended charge.