Kieran Jamie Pillai

Kieran Jamie Pillai is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2022 to 2023. The lawyer has handled 3 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 1 law firm. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in minority oppression and civil procedure. Their track record shows a 33.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 1 complex case, representing 33% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Kieran Jamie Pillai has demonstrated expertise across 20 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and corporate law.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	2 cases	10% of total caseload	General Practice27% relevance score	Kieran Jamie Pillai has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 10% of their total caseload.
Corporate Law	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Kieran Jamie Pillai has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Healthcare Law	1 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Kieran Jamie Pillai has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Medical Malpractice	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Kieran Jamie Pillai has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Property Law	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Kieran Jamie Pillai has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Minority Oppression	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Kieran Jamie Pillai has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Commercial Disputes	1 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Kieran Jamie Pillai has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Evidence Law	1 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Kieran Jamie Pillai has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Disciplinary Proceedings	1 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Kieran Jamie Pillai has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Sentencing	1 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Kieran Jamie Pillai has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Professional conduct	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Kieran Jamie Pillai has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Kieran Jamie Pillai has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Medical Negligence	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Kieran Jamie Pillai has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Evidence	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Kieran Jamie Pillai has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Shareholders Agreement	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Kieran Jamie Pillai has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Company Law	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Kieran Jamie Pillai has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Interest in land	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Kieran Jamie Pillai has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Liability of co-owner to account	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Kieran Jamie Pillai has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Accounting and Inquiry	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Kieran Jamie Pillai has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Documentary evidence	1 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Kieran Jamie Pillai has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Kieran Jamie Pillai has been affiliated with 1 law firm. The most active affiliation involves 3 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Yuen Law LLC	3 cases	100% of cases	Ho Tze Woon v Singapore Medical Council: Appeal Against Suspension for Failure to Provide Adequate CPR(Sep 2023) Aw Chee Peng v Aw Chee Loo: Accounting for Rental Proceeds Dispute(Jun 2023) Lim Tong Zhen Kevryn v Cheo Jean Sheng: Minority Shareholder Oppression & Share Dilution Dispute(Dec 2022)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Kieran Jamie Pillai's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 3.0
Complex Cases: 1 (33%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	12.0 parties avg	2.0	33%
Partial	12.0 parties avg	2.0	33%
Won	14.0 parties avg	4.0	33%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2022	14.0 parties avg	4.0
2023	22.0 parties avg	2.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Kieran Jamie Pillai's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	1(33%)	33%
Partial	1(33%)	33%
Won	1(33%)	33%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	60,902.48	30,451.242 cases	2

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2022	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2023	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Partial: 1 cases (50.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 3 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Ho Tze Woon v Singapore Medical Council: Appeal Against Suspension for Failure to Provide Adequate CPR 10 Sep 2023 Ho Tze Woon (Appellant)Partial	10 Sep 2023	Ho Tze Woon (Appellant): Appeal allowed in partAppeal against conviction dismissed, but appeal against sentence allowed and suspension reduced from nine months to three months.
2	Aw Chee Peng v Aw Chee Loo: Accounting for Rental Proceeds Dispute 04 Jun 2023 Aw Chee Loo (Defendant)Lost	04 Jun 2023	Aw Chee Loo (Defendant): Judgment against DefendantThe defendant will have to pay the plaintiff one-third of the net amount of $182,707.44, which is $60,902.48. Interest on the net amount at 5.33% per annum which accrues until the date of this decision; thereafter, interest accrues on the net amount (and also on any unpaid costs awarded in this decision) at 5.33% per annum until payment is made to the plaintiff. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
3	Lim Tong Zhen Kevryn v Cheo Jean Sheng: Minority Shareholder Oppression & Share Dilution Dispute 18 Dec 2022 Ching Sheue Siant Joey (Defendant)Won	18 Dec 2022	Ching Sheue Siant Joey (Defendant): Judgment for DefendantJudgment in favor of the Defendant. The judgment does not specify a currency, so the currency of the jurisdiction (Singapore) is assumed.