Loo Yu Hao Adrian

Loo Yu Hao Adrian is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2021 to 2023. The lawyer has handled 3 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 1 law firm. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in misuse of drugs act and contempt of court. Their track record shows a 67.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 1 complex case, representing 33% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Loo Yu Hao Adrian has demonstrated expertise across 13 primary practice areas, with significant experience in administrative law and civil practice.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Administrative Law	3 cases	17% of total caseload	Experienced62% relevance score	Loo Yu Hao Adrian has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 17% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	2 cases	11% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	Loo Yu Hao Adrian has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.
Criminal Law	2 cases	11% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Loo Yu Hao Adrian has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.
Judicial Review	2 cases	11% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	Loo Yu Hao Adrian has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.
Drug Crimes	1 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Loo Yu Hao Adrian has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility	1 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Loo Yu Hao Adrian has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Evidence Law	1 cases	6% of total caseload	General Practice15% relevance score	Loo Yu Hao Adrian has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Sentencing	1 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Loo Yu Hao Adrian has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Misuse of Drugs Act	1 cases	6% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Loo Yu Hao Adrian has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Criminal Procedure	1 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Loo Yu Hao Adrian has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Contempt of Court	1 cases	6% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Loo Yu Hao Adrian has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Statutory Interpretation	1 cases	6% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Loo Yu Hao Adrian has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Constitutional Law	1 cases	6% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Loo Yu Hao Adrian has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Loo Yu Hao Adrian has been affiliated with 1 law firm. The most active affiliation involves 3 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Attorney-General’s Chambers	3 cases	100% of cases	Attorney-General v Ravi Madasamy: Contempt of Court & Administration of Justice (Protection) Act(Mar 2023) Pannir Selvam v Attorney-General: Judicial Review of PP's Decision on Substantive Assistance under Misuse of Drugs Act(Apr 2022) Tan Hon Leong Eddie v Attorney-General: Judicial Review of CNB & AG Decisions on Drug Offenses(Aug 2021)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Loo Yu Hao Adrian's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 3.3
Complex Cases: 1 (33%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Partial	16.0 parties avg	6.0	33%
Won	22.0 parties avg	2.0	67%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2021	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2022	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2023	16.0 parties avg	6.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Loo Yu Hao Adrian's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

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

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2021	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2022	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2023	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 3 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Attorney-General v Ravi Madasamy: Contempt of Court & Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 30 Mar 2023 The Attorney-General (Applicant)Partial	30 Mar 2023	The Attorney-General (Applicant): Successful in partThe Attorney-General's application was successful in part, with Mr. Ravi found guilty of several allegations of contempt.
2	Pannir Selvam v Attorney-General: Judicial Review of PP's Decision on Substantive Assistance under Misuse of Drugs Act 20 Apr 2022 Attorney-General (Respondent)Won	20 Apr 2022	Attorney-General (Respondent): Appeal DismissedThe appeal against the Attorney-General was dismissed.
3	Tan Hon Leong Eddie v Attorney-General: Judicial Review of CNB & AG Decisions on Drug Offenses 22 Aug 2021 Attorney-General (Respondent)Won	22 Aug 2021	Attorney-General (Respondent): Application DismissedThe court dismissed the application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings.