Lim Wee Teck

Lim Wee Teck is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2015 to 2021. The lawyer has handled 3 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 2 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in building and construction contracts and construction law. Their track record shows a 33.0% success rate in resolved cases.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Lim Wee Teck has demonstrated expertise across 21 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and arbitration.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	2 cases	9% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Lim Wee Teck has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 9% of their total caseload.
Arbitration	2 cases	9% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Lim Wee Teck has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 9% of their total caseload.
Building and Construction Contracts	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Lim Wee Teck has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Business Litigation	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Lim Wee Teck has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Construction Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Lim Wee Teck has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Corporate Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Lim Wee Teck has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Patents	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Lim Wee Teck has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Assignment Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Lim Wee Teck has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Costs	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Lim Wee Teck has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Res Judicata	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Lim Wee Teck has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Lim Wee Teck has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Estoppel	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Lim Wee Teck has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Financial Reporting Standards	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Lim Wee Teck has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Lim Wee Teck has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Share Valuation	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Lim Wee Teck has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Shares	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Lim Wee Teck has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Company Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Lim Wee Teck has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Costs against non-party	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Lim Wee Teck has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Joint and several liability for costs	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Lim Wee Teck has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Factoring	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Lim Wee Teck has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Banking Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Lim Wee Teck has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Lim Wee Teck has been affiliated with 2 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 2 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP	2 cases	67% of cases	Kiri Industries Ltd v Senda International Capital Ltd: Costs Against Non-Party(Dec 2021) Kiri Industries v Senda International Capital: Share Valuation & Oppression(Jun 2021)
W T Lim & Partners	1 cases	33% of cases	Thian Sung Construction v International Elements: Security of Payment Act & Factoring(Dec 2015)

Case Complexity Analysis

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

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 2.7
Complex Cases: 0 (0%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	22.5 parties avg	2.5	67%
Won	13.0 parties avg	3.0	33%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2015	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2021	23.0 parties avg	3.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

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

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	0.00	0.002 cases	2

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2015	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2021	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 3 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Kiri Industries Ltd v Senda International Capital Ltd: Costs Against Non-Party 26 Dec 2021 Senda International Capital Ltd (Defendant)Won	26 Dec 2021	Senda International Capital Ltd (Defendant): Application deniedApplication to make Longsheng jointly and severally liable for Senda's costs was denied. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
2	Kiri Industries v Senda International Capital: Share Valuation & Oppression 02 Jun 2021 Senda International Capital Ltd (Defendant)Lost	02 Jun 2021	Senda International Capital Ltd (Defendant): Shares to be purchasedSenda International Capital Ltd was ordered to purchase Kiri Industries Ltd's shares in DyStar Global Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
3	Thian Sung Construction v International Elements: Security of Payment Act & Factoring 16 Dec 2015 Thian Sung Construction Pte Ltd (Plaintiff)Lost	16 Dec 2015	Thian Sung Construction Pte Ltd (Plaintiff): Application dismissedPlaintiff's application to set aside the adjudication determination was dismissed. Costs of $8,000, including disbursements, were ordered in favour of the defendant. The currency is assumed to be SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.