Kristy Tan

Kristy Tan is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2008 to 2022. The lawyer has handled 32 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 2 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in trademarks and criminal law. Their track record shows a 52.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 10 complex cases, representing 31% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Kristy Tan has demonstrated expertise across 116 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and civil procedure.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	15 cases	6% of total caseload	General Practice44% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 15 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	10 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 10 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	8 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice46% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 8 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Company Law	8 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice42% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 8 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Commercial Disputes	7 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 7 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Fiduciary Duties	6 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced54% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 6 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Arbitration	6 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice43% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 6 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Trademarks	5 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized89% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 5 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Jurisdiction	4 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Criminal Law	4 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized84% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Criminal Procedure	4 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized76% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Misrepresentation	4 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice21% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 4 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Judicial Review	3 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized87% relevance score	Kristy Tan 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 Practice28% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	3 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Corporate Law	3 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice36% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Fraud and Deceit	3 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice33% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Conflict of Laws	3 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized83% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Misuse of Drugs Act	3 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized88% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Defamation	3 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized94% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Disciplinary Proceedings	3 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Trust Law	3 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced73% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Estoppel	3 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Sentencing	3 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Natural forum	3 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced72% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Insolvency Law	3 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced58% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Constitutional Law	3 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced72% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Evidence	3 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced69% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Negligence	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Appellate Practice	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced53% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Civil Litigation	2 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice28% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Corporate Finance	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Corporate Governance	2 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice23% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Corporate Litigation	2 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Corporate Restructuring	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Medical Malpractice	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized87% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Property Law	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced72% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Conspiracy by Unlawful Means	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Measure of Damages	2 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice38% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Evidence Law	2 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice33% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Statutory offences	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized78% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Medical profession and practice	2 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Passing Off	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced58% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Lis alibi pendens	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Surgical procedure	2 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice33% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Differential Premium Assessment	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Medical Law	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Admissibility of evidence	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Anti-suit injunction	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Land Acquisition	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Comity	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Mental Capacity Law	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
International Law	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Assessment of Legal Costs	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Production of documents	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Abuse of Process	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Management Consultancy	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Confidentiality	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Foreign Law	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Kristy Tan 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	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Kristy Tan 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 Specialized95% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Health Care	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Agency Law	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Indemnity costs	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Forum Non Conveniens	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Breach of Duty of Care	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Employment Law	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Service of document out of jurisdiction	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Sealing of Court Documents	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Psychiatry	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Medical Negligence	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Criminal Revision	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Specific performance	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Damages	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Forum conveniens	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Drug Trafficking	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Statutory Interpretation	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Contracts	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Construction Law	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Commercial Litigation	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice25% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Summary Judgement	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Commercial Law	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Banking and Finance	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Stay of court proceedings	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Affidavits	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Professional Ethics	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Mareva Injunction	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Mutual Legal Assistance	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Foreign Judgments	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Building and Construction Law	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Legitimate Expectation	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Breach of duty to perform due diligence	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Informed consent	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Equal protection of the law	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Public Health Law	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
COVID-19 Policies	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Pre-action discovery	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Prosecutorial Discretion	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Scheme of Arrangement and Compromise	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Professional Discipline	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Mitigating factors	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Clang of the prison gates principle	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Restructuring and Insolvency	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Thai Law	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Taxation of Legal Costs	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Paediatrics	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Winding Up	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice15% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Warranty Law	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Inducement of Breach of Contract	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Post-operative care	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Anti-setoff clause	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Pre-action Interrogatories	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Private International Law	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Outrage of Modesty	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Kristy Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Kristy Tan has been affiliated with 2 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 23 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Allen & Gledhill LLP	23 cases	72% of cases	Chia Foong Lin v Singapore Medical Council: Appeal Against Disciplinary Tribunal's Decision on Doctor's Misdiagnosis of Kawasaki Disease(Jun 2017) Rappo v Accent Delight: Forum Non Conveniens, Stay of Proceedings & Conflict of Laws(Apr 2017) Singapore Medical Council v. Ang Peng Tiam: Leave to File Affidavit in High Court Appeal(Apr 2017)
Attorney-General’s Chambers	9 cases	28% of cases	Han Hui Hui v Attorney-General: Judicial Review of COVID-19 Policies & Vaccination(Jun 2022) Xu Yuan Chen v Attorney-General: Judicial Review of Prosecutorial Discretion & Equal Protection(Dec 2021) Leong Sow Hon v Public Prosecutor: Building Control Act Violation for Viaduct Structural Design Failure(Oct 2020)

Case Complexity Analysis

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

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 4.0
Complex Cases: 10 (31%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Dismissed	24.0 parties avg	4.0	6%
Lost	84.7 parties avg	4.7	25%
Neutral	13.0 parties avg	3.0	3%
Partial	32.5 parties avg	2.5	9%
Reserved	14.0 parties avg	4.0	3%
Stayed	14.0 parties avg	4.0	3%
Won	173.9 parties avg	3.9	53%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2008	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2009	24.0 parties avg	4.0
2010	23.3 parties avg	3.3
2011	22.7 parties avg	2.7
2012	33.7 parties avg	3.7
2013	45.1 parties avg	5.1
2014	25.3 parties avg	5.3
2015	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2016	24.0 parties avg	4.0
2017	44.6 parties avg	4.6
2019	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2020	62.3 parties avg	2.3
2021	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2022	17.0 parties avg	7.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Dismissed	2(6%)	6%
Lost	8(24%)	24%
Neutral	1(3%)	3%
Partial	3(9%)	9%
Reserved	1(3%)	3%
Stayed	1(3%)	3%
Won	17(52%)	52%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	399,501.80	26,633.4515 cases	15

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2008	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2009	2 11	Dismissed: 1 cases (50.0%) Lost: 1 cases (50.0%)
2010	3 111	Lost: 1 cases (33.3%) Reserved: 1 cases (33.3%) Stayed: 1 cases (33.3%)
2011	2 11	Partial: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2012	3 12	Lost: 1 cases (33.3%) Won: 2 cases (66.7%)
2013	4 121	Dismissed: 1 cases (25.0%) Lost: 2 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (25.0%)
2014	2 11	Partial: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2015	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2016	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2017	4 13	Lost: 1 cases (25.0%) Won: 3 cases (75.0%)
2019	1 1	Neutral: 1 cases (100.0%)
2020	6 114	Lost: 1 cases (16.7%) Partial: 1 cases (16.7%) Won: 4 cases (66.7%)
2021	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2022	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 32 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Han Hui Hui v Attorney-General: Judicial Review of COVID-19 Policies & Vaccination 15 Jun 2022 Attorney-General’s Chambers (Respondent)Won	15 Jun 2022	Attorney-General’s Chambers (Respondent): Application dismissedApplication for judicial review dismissed.
2	Xu Yuan Chen v Attorney-General: Judicial Review of Prosecutorial Discretion & Equal Protection 29 Dec 2021 Attorney-General (Respondent)Won	29 Dec 2021	Attorney-General (Respondent): Costs AwardedCosts of $5,000 awarded to the Attorney-General (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
3	Leong Sow Hon v Public Prosecutor: Building Control Act Violation for Viaduct Structural Design Failure 28 Oct 2020 Public Prosecutor (Respondent)Won	28 Oct 2020	Public Prosecutor (Respondent): Appeal DismissedSuccessfully defended the appeal against the six months’ imprisonment sentence.
4	Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi v Public Prosecutor: Trafficking, Misuse of Drugs Act & PTSD 16 Sep 2020 Public Prosecutor (Respondent)Lost	16 Sep 2020	Public Prosecutor (Respondent): Appeal DismissedThe Court of Appeal allowed the application, setting aside the conviction and affirming the High Court's original acquittal.
5	Saravanan Chandaram v Public Prosecutor: Importation of Cannabis and Cannabis Mixture under the Misuse of Drugs Act 28 Apr 2020 Public Prosecutor (Respondent, Applicant)Partial	28 Apr 2020	Public Prosecutor (Respondent, Applicant): Partial LossConviction for Importation of Cannabis Mixture Charge set aside.
6	Public Prosecutor v Siow Kai Yuan Terence: Sentencing for Outrage of Modesty on Public Transport 26 Apr 2020 Public Prosecutor (Appellant)Won	26 Apr 2020	Public Prosecutor (Appellant): Appeal AllowedThe appeal was allowed, and the respondent was sentenced to two weeks imprisonment.
7	Steep Rise Ltd v Attorney-General: Duty of Full Disclosure & Enforcement of Foreign Confiscation Order under MACMA 23 Mar 2020 Attorney-General (Respondent)Won	23 Mar 2020	Attorney-General (Respondent): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed; Attorney-General awarded costs of $40,000 from Steep Rise Limited (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
8	Law Society of Singapore v. Yeo Khirn Hai Alvin: Disciplinary Review for Mental Capacity & Overcharging 07 Jan 2020 Attorney-General (Applicant)Won	07 Jan 2020	Attorney-General (Applicant): Appeal AllowedDetermination set aside; new Disciplinary Tribunal to be appointed.
9	PP v Hamidah & Ilechukwu: Drug Trafficking, Fresh Evidence, PTSD & Impact on Statements 04 Jul 2019 Public Prosecutor (Prosecution)Neutral	04 Jul 2019	Public Prosecutor (Prosecution): Findings made on the terms of reference remitted by the Court of Appeal.The court made findings on the terms of reference remitted by the Court of Appeal.
10	Chia Foong Lin v Singapore Medical Council: Appeal Against Disciplinary Tribunal's Decision on Doctor's Misdiagnosis of Kawasaki Disease 26 Jun 2017 Chia Foong Lin (Appellant)Lost	26 Jun 2017	Chia Foong Lin (Appellant): Appeal DismissedThe appeal against the Disciplinary Tribunal's decision was dismissed.
11	Rappo v Accent Delight: Forum Non Conveniens, Stay of Proceedings & Conflict of Laws 17 Apr 2017 MEI Invest Limited (Appellant, Applicant, Defendant)Won	17 Apr 2017	MEI Invest Limited (Appellant, Applicant, Defendant): Appeal AllowedAppeal allowed and stay of proceedings granted.
12	Singapore Medical Council v. Ang Peng Tiam: Leave to File Affidavit in High Court Appeal 06 Apr 2017 ANG PENG TIAM (Respondent)Won	06 Apr 2017	ANG PENG TIAM (Respondent): Costs awarded to RespondentCosts of the application awarded to the Respondent, fixed at $10,000 excluding disbursements. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
13	TMT Co. Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland: Stay of Proceedings & Natural Forum in Conflict of Laws & Arbitration 06 Feb 2017 Fred Goodwin (Respondent)Won	06 Feb 2017	Fred Goodwin (Respondent): Service Out of Jurisdiction Set AsideService out of jurisdiction against the 3rd Defendant was set aside.
14	Koo Quay Keong v Ooi Peng Jin: Negligence Claim for Post-Operative Care After Whipple Operation 23 Aug 2016 Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien (Defendant)Won	23 Aug 2016	Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien (Defendant): Judgment for DefendantThe court found in favor of the defendant, dismissing the plaintiff's claim.
15	Accent Delight v Bouvier: Forum Non Conveniens & Conflict of Laws 16 Mar 2016 MEI Invest Limited (Defendant)Lost	16 Mar 2016	MEI Invest Limited (Defendant): Summons dismissedSummons filed by the defendant was dismissed. Costs to the plaintiffs to be taxed unless otherwise agreed. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
16	Guy Neale v Ku De Ta: Trade Mark Infringement, Exclusive Licence, and Beneficial Ownership Dispute 25 May 2015 Guy Neale (Appellant)Won	25 May 2015	Guy Neale (Appellant): Appeal AllowedAppeal allowed; the Appellants are entitled to enjoin the Respondent from any further use of the “Ku De Ta” mark, but the court will not grant an injunction if the Respondent undertakes to this court that it will not use the “Ku De Ta” mark or name. The Respondent is to confirm its position in this regard within two weeks of the date of this judgment. In the event the Respondent is not willing to furnish such an undertaking, the court may wish to hear the parties on the scope of the injunction it should grant. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
17	Guy Neale v Nine Squares: Trust, Trade Marks & Ku De Ta Brand Dispute 21 Dec 2014 White Horses Investments Limited (Appellant)Won	21 Dec 2014	White Horses Investments Limited (Appellant): Appeal AllowedAppeal allowed; Singapore Marks held on trust for the Partnership.
18	Haywood Management Ltd v Eagle Aero Technology Pte Ltd: Pre-Action Discovery & Conspiracy/Fraud Claim 18 Aug 2014 Eagle Aero Technology Pte Ltd (Appellant)Partial	18 Aug 2014	Eagle Aero Technology Pte Ltd (Appellant): Appeal dismissed in partAppeal dismissed with respect to pre-action discovery; no order made for pre-action interrogatories. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
19	Chiu Teng v SLA: Judicial Review of Differential Premium Assessment for Lifting Title Restrictions 26 Nov 2013 Singapore Land Authority (Respondent)Won	26 Nov 2013	Singapore Land Authority (Respondent): Successful in Defending ApplicationSuccessfully defended against the application for judicial review; applicant to pay costs (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
20	Neale v Nine Squares: Trust, Trade Marks & Partnership Dispute over 'KU DE TA' Brand 17 Nov 2013 White Horses Investments Limited (Plaintiff)Lost	17 Nov 2013	White Horses Investments Limited (Plaintiff): Claim DismissedClaim dismissed; no monetary award. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
21	Guy Neale v Ku de Ta SG Pte Ltd: Trade Mark Infringement and Passing Off Dispute 17 Nov 2013 Guy Neale (Plaintiff)Dismissed	17 Nov 2013	Guy Neale (Plaintiff): Claim DismissedPlaintiffs' action dismissed following the dismissal of Suit 314.
22	eSys Technologies v nTan: Contractual Interpretation, Value Added Fee, and Restructuring 24 Mar 2013 nTan Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd (Respondent)Lost	24 Mar 2013	nTan Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd (Respondent): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed with costs.
23	Raffles Town Club v Lim Eng Hock Peter: Breach of Directors' Duties & Conspiracy 30 Oct 2012 Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd (Appellant, Plaintiff)Lost	30 Oct 2012	Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd (Appellant, Plaintiff): Appeal DismissedRTC's appeal against the dismissal of its claims against the former directors was dismissed.
24	eSys Technologies v nTan Corporate Advisory: Dispute over Consultancy Fees and Value-Added Fee Entitlement 28 Jun 2012 nTan Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd (Defendant)Won	28 Jun 2012	nTan Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd (Defendant): Counterclaim AllowedInterlocutory judgment with costs on its counterclaim for value-added fee. An inquiry shall be held by the Registrar to determine the amount of VAF with costs of such inquiry reserved to the Registrar together with interest on the VAF assessed. The VAF amount when assessed shall be paid from the balance of the Deposit. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
25	AZT v AZV: Sealing of Court Documents to Preserve Arbitration Confidentiality 23 May 2012 AZT and others (Plaintiff)Won	23 May 2012	AZT and others (Plaintiff): Application allowedPlaintiff's application to seal the court documents was allowed.
26	Lin Jian Wei v Lim Eng Hock Peter: Indemnity Costs & Proportionality in Defamation 30 May 2011 Tung Yu-Lien Margaret (Appellant)Partial	30 May 2011	Tung Yu-Lien Margaret (Appellant): Appeal Allowed in PartThe appeal was allowed in part, with the sum of $650,000 awarded by the Judge under Section 1 of BC 247 substituted with a sum of $250,000. The appellants are to have the costs of this appeal, which we fix at $15,000 inclusive of reasonable disbursements. The usual consequential orders are to follow. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
27	Neale v Ku De Ta: Trade Mark Infringement & Protection of Well-Known Marks 25 May 2011 Guy Neale and others (suing as a partnership) (Plaintiff)Won	25 May 2011	Guy Neale and others (suing as a partnership) (Plaintiff): Application dismissedDefendant's application to strike out portions of the plaintiff's statement of claim was dismissed with costs to the plaintiffs (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
28	Ng Teck Sim Colin v Hat Holdings: Dispute over Villa 2 Sale in Thailand 02 Aug 2010 Bolliger Hans Peter (Defendant)Reserved	02 Aug 2010	Bolliger Hans Peter (Defendant): Claim against Bolliger reservedClaim against Bolliger reserved pending outcome of stay order.
29	Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei: Defamation Damages for Business Mismanagement 27 Jul 2010 Lin Jian Wei (Respondent)Lost	27 Jul 2010	Lin Jian Wei (Respondent): Appeal AllowedAppeal allowed; required to pay damages to the appellant (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
30	Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei: Defamation & Qualified Privilege 07 Oct 2009 Tung Yu-Lien Margaret (Respondent)Lost	07 Oct 2009	Tung Yu-Lien Margaret (Respondent): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed; judgment against the Respondent for damages and costs. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
31	Surender Singh v Li Man Kay: Medical Negligence in Kidney Donor Death 21 Jul 2009 Consigliere David Terence (Defendant)Dismissed	21 Jul 2009	Consigliere David Terence (Defendant): Claim DismissedPlaintiffs’ claims against Dr. Consigliere David Terence dismissed with costs.
32	Gao Bin v OCBC Securities: Summary Judgment, Anti-Setoff Clause & Unfair Contract Terms Act 19 Oct 2008 OCBC Securities Pte Ltd (Defendant, Respondent)Won	19 Oct 2008	OCBC Securities Pte Ltd (Defendant, Respondent): Summary judgment enteredSummary judgment was entered on the Margin Claim against the plaintiff for the sum of $344,501.80 with interest (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).