Leong Why Kong

Leong Why Kong is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2000 to 2008. The lawyer has handled 4 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 3 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in divorce and family law. They have managed 1 complex case, representing 25% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Leong Why Kong has demonstrated expertise across 30 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and construction law.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	3 cases	9% of total caseload	Experienced58% relevance score	Leong Why Kong has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 9% of their total caseload.
Construction Law	2 cases	6% of total caseload	General Practice38% relevance score	Leong Why Kong has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Leong Why Kong has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Child Custody	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Leong Why Kong has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Child Support	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Leong Why Kong has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Commercial Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Leong Why Kong has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Contracts	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Leong Why Kong has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Conveyance	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Leong Why Kong has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Conveyancing	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Leong Why Kong has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Divorce	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Leong Why Kong has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Family Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Leong Why Kong has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Performance Bonds	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Leong Why Kong has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Property Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Leong Why Kong has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Strata Title Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Leong Why Kong has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Striking Out Applications	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Leong Why Kong has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Injunctions	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Leong Why Kong has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Misrepresentation	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Leong Why Kong has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Fraud and Deceit	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Leong Why Kong has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Inducement of Breach of Contract	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Leong Why Kong has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Malicious Falsehood	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Leong Why Kong has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Settlement Agreement	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	Leong Why Kong has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Parenting	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Leong Why Kong has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Defamation	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Leong Why Kong has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Statutory Interpretation	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Leong Why Kong has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Summary Judgement	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Leong Why Kong has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Matrimonial Assets	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Leong Why Kong has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Defective Works	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Leong Why Kong 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	Leong Why Kong has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Architect's Certificate	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	Leong Why Kong has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Arbitration	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Leong Why Kong has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Leong Why Kong has been affiliated with 3 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 2 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Ascentsia Law Corporation	2 cases	50% of cases	Toh Buan Eileen v Ho Kiang Fah: Application for Reconciliation and Counselling under Women's Charter(Feb 2008) Chin Bay Ching v Merchant Ventures: Defamation, Interlocutory Injunctions & Freedom of Speech(May 2005)
Salem Ibrahim & Partners	1 cases	25% of cases	Soil-Build v Sin Yam Huat: Claim for Monies Due Under Architect's Certificate(Nov 2000)
Ascentia Law Corporation	1 cases	25% of cases	Ng Swee Lang v Sassoon Samuel: Collective Sale, Strata Titles Board Jurisdiction & S&P Agreement Validity(Feb 2008)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Leong Why Kong's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 3.2
Complex Cases: 1 (25%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	43.2 parties avg	3.2	100%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2000	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2005	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2008	24.0 parties avg	4.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Leong Why Kong's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	4(100%)	100%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	368,205.34	92,051.344 cases	4

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2000	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2005	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2008	2 2	Lost: 2 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 4 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Ng Swee Lang v Sassoon Samuel: Collective Sale, Strata Titles Board Jurisdiction & S&P Agreement Validity 28 Feb 2008 Yip Hoi Thong (Appellant)Lost	28 Feb 2008	Yip Hoi Thong (Appellant): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed with costs. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
2	Toh Buan Eileen v Ho Kiang Fah: Application for Reconciliation and Counselling under Women's Charter 28 Feb 2008 Ho Kiang Fah (Defendant, Appellant)Lost	28 Feb 2008	Ho Kiang Fah (Defendant, Appellant): Appeal DismissedHusband's appeal was dismissed; each party to bear its own costs. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
3	Chin Bay Ching v Merchant Ventures: Defamation, Interlocutory Injunctions & Freedom of Speech 16 May 2005 Merchant Ventures Pte Ltd (Respondent)Lost	16 May 2005	Merchant Ventures Pte Ltd (Respondent): Appeal dismissedAppeal dismissed with costs. The judgment does not specify a currency, so the currency of the jurisdiction (Singapore) is assumed.
4	Soil-Build v Sin Yam Huat: Claim for Monies Due Under Architect's Certificate 27 Nov 2000 Sin Yam Huat Investment Holding Pte Ltd (Defendant, Respondent)Lost	27 Nov 2000	Sin Yam Huat Investment Holding Pte Ltd (Defendant, Respondent): Judgment against DefendantJudgment against the Defendant in the sum of $368,205.34 plus interest, stayed pending determination of any counterclaim. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.