Lin Zixian

Lin Zixian is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2013 to 2015. The lawyer has handled 4 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 1 law firm. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in contentious business agreements and assessment of legal costs. Their track record shows a 25.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 1 complex case, representing 25% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Lin Zixian has demonstrated expertise across 19 primary practice areas, with significant experience in corporate law and civil procedure.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Corporate Law	3 cases	12% of total caseload	General Practice23% relevance score	Lin Zixian has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 12% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	3 cases	12% of total caseload	General Practice33% relevance score	Lin Zixian has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 12% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	2 cases	8% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Lin Zixian has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Construction Law	2 cases	8% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	Lin Zixian has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	2 cases	8% of total caseload	General Practice25% relevance score	Lin Zixian has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Commercial Disputes	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Lin Zixian has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Contentious Business Agreements	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Lin Zixian has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Assessment of Legal Costs	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Lin Zixian has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Legal Profession Act	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Lin Zixian 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	Experienced50% relevance score	Lin Zixian has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Evidence	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Lin Zixian has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Company Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Lin Zixian has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Strata Management	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Lin Zixian has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Jet Grout Pile Method	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Lin Zixian has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Measurement of Construction Work	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Lin Zixian has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Lin Zixian has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Legal Malpractice	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Lin Zixian has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Property Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Lin Zixian has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Strata Title Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Lin Zixian has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Lin Zixian has been affiliated with 1 law firm. The most active affiliation involves 4 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Chancery Law Corporation	4 cases	100% of cases	Bumi Geo Engineering v Civil Tech: Construction Sub-Contract Dispute over Payment for Ground Improvement Works(Oct 2015) Chancery Law Corp v MCST No 1024: Contentious Business Agreement Dispute(Mar 2015) Fu Loong v Mok: Chairperson's Powers & Subsidiary Proprietors' Rights in Strata Management(May 2014)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Lin Zixian's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 4.3
Complex Cases: 1 (25%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Dismissed	26.0 parties avg	6.0	50%
Partial	13.0 parties avg	3.0	25%
Won	12.0 parties avg	2.0	25%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2013	110.0 parties avg	10.0
2014	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2015	22.0 parties avg	2.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Dismissed	2(50%)	50%
Partial	1(25%)	25%
Won	1(25%)	25%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	0.00	0.002 cases	2

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2013	1 1	Dismissed: 1 cases (100.0%)
2014	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)
2015	2 11	Dismissed: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 4 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Bumi Geo Engineering v Civil Tech: Construction Sub-Contract Dispute over Payment for Ground Improvement Works 11 Oct 2015 Civil Tech Pte Ltd (Defendant)Dismissed	11 Oct 2015	Civil Tech Pte Ltd (Defendant): Counterclaim DismissedThe defendant's counterclaim was dismissed due to evidential shortcomings.
2	Chancery Law Corp v MCST No 1024: Contentious Business Agreement Dispute 12 Mar 2015 Chancery Law Corp (Applicant, Appellant)Won	12 Mar 2015	Chancery Law Corp (Applicant, Appellant): Appeal AllowedAppeal allowed; third party notice set aside. (Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
3	Fu Loong v Mok: Chairperson's Powers & Subsidiary Proprietors' Rights in Strata Management 22 May 2014 Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1024 (Respondent)Partial	22 May 2014	Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1024 (Respondent): Appeal Partially UnsuccessfulAppeal partially unsuccessful; rulings on Motions 8 and 9 invalidated; rejection of Contested Votes on Motion 2 invalidated; direction on amendments to Motions 1(b) and 1(e) set aside (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
4	Fu Loong v Mok: Invalidating MCST Chairperson Rulings on Motions at General Meeting 27 Oct 2013 Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1024 (Defendant)Dismissed	27 Oct 2013	Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1024 (Defendant): Application dismissed in partThe Plaintiffs’ application to invalidate the 1st Defendant’s ruling on Motions 3(a), 3(b), 8 and 9 are validated; the other orders sought by the Plaintiffs were refused.