Lim Tat

Lim Tat is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2007 to 2023. The lawyer has handled 12 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 3 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in strata title law and statutory derivative action. Their track record shows a 50.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 3 complex cases, representing 25% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Lim Tat has demonstrated expertise across 55 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and civil procedure.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	10 cases	11% of total caseload	Experienced52% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 10 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	6 cases	6% of total caseload	General Practice46% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 6 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	5 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced58% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 5 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Company Law	4 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced64% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Estoppel	4 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice38% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 4 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	3 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Arbitration	3 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice43% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Strata Title Law	3 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized87% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Property Law	3 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced67% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Shareholders Agreement	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Jurisdiction	2 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Fiduciary Duties	2 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice35% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Costs	2 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice35% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Commercial Disputes	2 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice37% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Statutory derivative action	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized87% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Fraud and Deceit	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Extension of Time	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Formation of contract	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Legal Profession Act	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Judgments and Orders	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Mistake	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Damages	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Restraint of Trade	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Companies Act	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Interpretation of contractual terms	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Financial Disclosure	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Contractual Interpretation	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Sale of Goods	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Performance of Contract	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Variation	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Accounting	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Building Management	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Shareholder Rights	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Shareholders’ dispute	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Oral contracts	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Effective Cause	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Commercial Transactions	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Commission	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Distribution Agreement	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Sale and Leaseback	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Marketing Agent	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Agency and Distributorships	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Appellate Practice	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Building and Construction Contracts	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Commercial Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Commercial Litigation	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Construction Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Copyrights	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Corporate Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Real Estate	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Strata Management Disputes	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Minority Oppression	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Misrepresentation	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice25% relevance score	Lim Tat has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Lim Tat has been affiliated with 3 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 10 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Aequitas Law LLP	10 cases	83% of cases	Sunpower Semiconductor v. Powercom Yuraku: Extension of Time for Submissions in Shareholders' Dispute Appeal(Apr 2023) Cheung Phei Chiet v Jujun Tanu: Strata Title Dispute over Common Property(Mar 2023) Chng Kheng Chye v Kaefer Integrated Services: Statutory Derivative Action & Oral Loan Arrangement Dispute(Feb 2023)
CSP Legal LLC	1 cases	8% of cases	Healthcare Supply Chain v Roche Diagnostics: Interpretation of Termination Clause in Distribution Agreement(Mar 2011)
Tan, Lim & Wong	1 cases	8% of cases	Colliers International v Senkee Logistics: Agency Agreement & Commission Dispute(Jan 2007)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Lim Tat's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 2.8
Complex Cases: 3 (25%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	32.0 parties avg	2.0	25%
Partial	32.7 parties avg	2.7	25%
Won	63.1 parties avg	3.1	50%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2007	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2009	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2011	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2017	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2018	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2020	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2021	22.0 parties avg	2.0
2022	15.0 parties avg	5.0
2023	33.7 parties avg	3.7

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	3(25%)	25%
Partial	3(25%)	25%
Won	6(50%)	50%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	1,603,142.47	160,314.2510 cases	10

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2007	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2009	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2011	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2017	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)
2018	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2020	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2021	2 11	Partial: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2022	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2023	3 111	Lost: 1 cases (33.3%) Partial: 1 cases (33.3%) Won: 1 cases (33.3%)

Case History

Displaying all 12 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Sunpower Semiconductor v. Powercom Yuraku: Extension of Time for Submissions in Shareholders' Dispute Appeal 25 Apr 2023 Powercom Yuraku Pte Ltd (Respondent)Won	25 Apr 2023	Powercom Yuraku Pte Ltd (Respondent): Costs awardedCosts of the application awarded to Powercom Yuraku Pte Ltd, fixed at $8,000 (inclusive of disbursements). Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
2	Cheung Phei Chiet v Jujun Tanu: Strata Title Dispute over Common Property 01 Mar 2023 Cheung Phei Chiet (Applicant)Partial	01 Mar 2023	Cheung Phei Chiet (Applicant): Partial JudgmentApplicant's case dismissed except for one order regarding reinstatement of rear windows.
3	Chng Kheng Chye v Kaefer Integrated Services: Statutory Derivative Action & Oral Loan Arrangement Dispute 08 Feb 2023 Kaefer Integrated Services Pte Ltd (Defendant)Lost	08 Feb 2023	Kaefer Integrated Services Pte Ltd (Defendant): Claim DismissedClaim dismissed; the Defendant is required to pay S$1,544,142.47 to the Plaintiff (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
4	Powercom Yuraku v Sunpower Semiconductor: Setting Aside Default Judgment in Singapore High Court 31 Aug 2022 Powercom Yuraku Pte Ltd (Plaintiff)Won	31 Aug 2022	Powercom Yuraku Pte Ltd (Plaintiff): Judgment for PlaintiffAppeal dismissed; the original judgment in default of defence against the first defendant was upheld in part. The judgment does not specify a currency, so SGD is assumed as the jurisdiction is Singapore.
5	Raman Dhir v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1374: Appeal on Leave Requirement for Cross-Claim 15 Sep 2021 Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1374 (Respondent)Won	15 Sep 2021	Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1374 (Respondent): Appeal UpheldAppeal upheld; costs awarded to the respondent fixed at $5,000 plus disbursements (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
6	CBB v Law Society: Mandatory Order for Legal Profession Act Complaint 28 Jan 2021 Law Society of Singapore (Respondent)Partial	28 Jan 2021	Law Society of Singapore (Respondent): Appeal dismissed in partAppeal dismissed in part; mandatory order granted. Liable for costs of the appeal awarded to the appellant, fixed at $10,000 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
7	Chng Kheng Chye v Kaefer Prostar: Statutory Derivative Action & Leave to Commence Suit 02 Sep 2020 Kaefer Integrated Services Pte Ltd (Respondent)Won	02 Sep 2020	Kaefer Integrated Services Pte Ltd (Respondent): WonCosts for both applications were awarded to the respondents and fixed at S$8,000 inclusive of disbursements. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
8	Management Corporation v Lim: Strata Title Renovation Dispute 28 Nov 2018 The Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 940 (Plaintiff)Won	28 Nov 2018	The Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 940 (Plaintiff): Application AllowedPlaintiff's application allowed; mandatory injunction ordered; defendant to pay costs of $30,000 excluding disbursements (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
9	LED Linear v Krislite: Breach of Contract & Sale of Goods Act Dispute 29 Jun 2017 LED Linear (Asia) Pte Ltd (Plaintiff)Partial	29 Jun 2017	LED Linear (Asia) Pte Ltd (Plaintiff): Judgment for Plaintiff in partJudgment for the Plaintiff for the remaining 50% of the price for the Canopy lighting less the cost of the defective lights that LED Linear had offered to replace. Interest on this sum is payable at the rate of 5.33% from the date of the writ to the date of judgment. The currency is assumed to be SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
10	Healthcare Supply Chain v Roche Diagnostics: Interpretation of Termination Clause in Distribution Agreement 23 Mar 2011 Roche Diagnostics Asia Pacific Pte Ltd (Respondent)Won	23 Mar 2011	Roche Diagnostics Asia Pacific Pte Ltd (Respondent): Application for leave to appeal dismissedApplication for leave to appeal dismissed in their favor. Costs to be determined later if parties cannot agree (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
11	Chua Chian Ya v Music & Movements: Breach of Contract & Restraint of Trade in Music Publishing Agreement 05 Nov 2009 Music & Movements (S) Pte Ltd (formerly trading as M & M Music Publishing) (Respondent)Lost	05 Nov 2009	Music & Movements (S) Pte Ltd (formerly trading as M & M Music Publishing) (Respondent): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed with costs and the usual consequential orders. The judgment does not specify a currency, so the jurisdiction's primary currency (SGD) is assumed.
12	Colliers International v Senkee Logistics: Agency Agreement & Commission Dispute 31 Jan 2007 Colliers International (Singapore) Pte Ltd (Plaintiff)Lost	31 Jan 2007	Colliers International (Singapore) Pte Ltd (Plaintiff): Claim DismissedThe plaintiff's claim for commission was dismissed as the court found no contractual relationship and that the plaintiff was not the effective cause of the sale. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.