Latiff Ibrahim

Latiff Ibrahim is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2003 to 2003. The lawyer has handled 3 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 1 law firm. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in civil practice. They have managed 3 complex cases, representing 100% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Latiff Ibrahim has demonstrated expertise across 8 primary practice areas, with significant experience in civil practice and jurisdiction.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Civil Practice	3 cases	20% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Latiff Ibrahim has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 20% of their total caseload.
Jurisdiction	3 cases	20% of total caseload	General Practice47% relevance score	Latiff Ibrahim has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 20% of their total caseload.
Arbitration	3 cases	20% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Latiff Ibrahim has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 20% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	2 cases	13% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Latiff Ibrahim has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 13% of their total caseload.
Appeal	1 cases	7% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Latiff Ibrahim has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Construction Law	1 cases	7% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Latiff Ibrahim has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Stay of Proceedings	1 cases	7% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Latiff Ibrahim has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Summary Judgement	1 cases	7% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Latiff Ibrahim has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Latiff Ibrahim has been affiliated with 1 law firm. The most active affiliation involves 3 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Harry Elias Partnership	3 cases	100% of cases	Samsung Corp v Chinese Chamber Realty: Summary Judgment & Stay of Proceedings(Dec 2003) Chinese Chamber Realty v Samsung: Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal on Arbitration Clause(Sep 2003) Chinese Chamber Realty v Samsung Corp: Summary Judgment & Arbitration Stay Under Rules of Court(Aug 2003)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Latiff Ibrahim's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 4.0
Complex Cases: 3 (100%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	24.0 parties avg	4.0	67%
Partial	14.0 parties avg	4.0	33%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2003	34.0 parties avg	4.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	2(67%)	67%
Partial	1(33%)	33%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	15,000.00	7,500.002 cases	2

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2003	3 21	Lost: 2 cases (66.7%) Partial: 1 cases (33.3%)

Case History

Displaying all 3 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Samsung Corp v Chinese Chamber Realty: Summary Judgment & Stay of Proceedings 28 Dec 2003 Church Street Properties Pte Ltd (Respondent)Lost	28 Dec 2003	Church Street Properties Pte Ltd (Respondent): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed; application for summary judgement cannot be brought before the stay application has been finally disposed of. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
2	Chinese Chamber Realty v Samsung: Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal on Arbitration Clause 21 Sep 2003 China Square Holdings Private Limited (Plaintiff)Lost	21 Sep 2003	China Square Holdings Private Limited (Plaintiff): Orders stayed pending appealOrders of Rajendran J stayed pending appeal before the Court of Appeal.
3	Chinese Chamber Realty v Samsung Corp: Summary Judgment & Arbitration Stay Under Rules of Court 14 Aug 2003 Church Street Properties Pte Ltd (Plaintiff, Respondent)Partial	14 Aug 2003	Church Street Properties Pte Ltd (Plaintiff, Respondent): Appeal dismissedAppeal against the Assistant Registrar's decision was dismissed, but the orders were varied. CCR was awarded 75% of the costs of the appeal, fixed at $5,000 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).