Lee Hong Jet Jason

Lee Hong Jet Jason is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2017 to 2017. The lawyer has handled 1 case in Singapore's courts. Associated with 1 law firm. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in harassment and privacy law. Their track record shows a 100.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 1 complex case, representing 100% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Lee Hong Jet Jason has demonstrated expertise across 8 primary practice areas, with significant experience in administrative law and constitutional law.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Administrative Law	1 cases	13% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Lee Hong Jet Jason has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 13% of their total caseload.
Constitutional Law	1 cases	13% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Lee Hong Jet Jason has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 13% of their total caseload.
Contracts	1 cases	13% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Lee Hong Jet Jason has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 13% of their total caseload.
Harassment	1 cases	13% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Lee Hong Jet Jason has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 13% of their total caseload.
Privacy Law	1 cases	13% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Lee Hong Jet Jason has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 13% of their total caseload.
Torts	1 cases	13% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Lee Hong Jet Jason has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 13% of their total caseload.
Statutory Interpretation	1 cases	13% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Lee Hong Jet Jason has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 13% of their total caseload.
False statements of fact	1 cases	13% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Lee Hong Jet Jason has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 13% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Lee Hong Jet Jason has been affiliated with 1 law firm. The most active affiliation involves 1 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Peter Low LLC	1 cases	100% of cases	Attorney-General v Ting Choon Meng: Harassment & False Statements under Protection from Harassment Act(Jan 2017)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Lee Hong Jet Jason's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 7.0
Complex Cases: 1 (100%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Won	17.0 parties avg	7.0	100%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2017	17.0 parties avg	7.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Lee Hong Jet Jason's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Won	1(100%)	100%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	0.00	0.001 cases	1

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2017	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 1 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Attorney-General v Ting Choon Meng: Harassment & False Statements under Protection from Harassment Act 15 Jan 2017 Ting Choon Meng (Respondent, Appellant)Won	15 Jan 2017	Ting Choon Meng (Respondent, Appellant): Appeal allowed.The appeal was allowed. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.