Looi Ming Ming

Looi Ming Ming is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2004 to 2023. The lawyer has handled 13 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 4 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in res judicata and civil practice. Their track record shows a 46.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 2 complex cases, representing 15% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Looi Ming Ming has demonstrated expertise across 47 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and property law.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	10 cases	12% of total caseload	General Practice42% relevance score	Looi Ming Ming has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 10 cases which represents 12% of their total caseload.
Property Law	7 cases	8% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Looi Ming Ming has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 7 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	4 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Looi Ming Ming has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Res Judicata	4 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized78% relevance score	Looi Ming Ming has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Easements	4 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced74% relevance score	Looi Ming Ming has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	3 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Looi Ming Ming has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Arbitration	3 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	Looi Ming Ming has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	3 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice33% relevance score	Looi Ming Ming has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Estoppel	2 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	Looi Ming Ming has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Rights of way	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized88% relevance score	Looi Ming Ming has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Costs	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized93% relevance score	Looi Ming Ming has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Settlement Agreement	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced73% relevance score	Looi Ming Ming has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Real Estate	2 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Looi Ming Ming has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Construction Law	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Looi Ming Ming has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Natural justice	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Looi Ming Ming has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Issue Estoppel	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Looi Ming Ming has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Forfeiture of Lease	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Looi Ming Ming has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Tenancy Agreement	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Looi Ming Ming has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Looi Ming Ming has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Agency Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Looi Ming Ming has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Specific performance	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Looi Ming Ming has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Damages	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Looi Ming Ming has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Summary Judgement	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Looi Ming Ming has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Tenancy Agreements	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Looi Ming Ming has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Interest	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Looi Ming Ming has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Commercial Tenancy	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Looi Ming Ming has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Adverse Possession	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Looi Ming Ming has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Factual Possession	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice25% relevance score	Looi Ming Ming has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Intention to Possess	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice25% relevance score	Looi Ming Ming has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Animus Possidendi	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Looi Ming Ming has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Hotel Management Agreement	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Looi Ming Ming has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
State Land Rules	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Looi Ming Ming has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Looi Ming Ming has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Extinguishment	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Looi Ming Ming has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Banking and Finance	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Looi Ming Ming has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Building and Construction Contracts	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Looi Ming Ming has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Commercial Leasing	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Looi Ming Ming has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Commercial Litigation	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Looi Ming Ming has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Conveyance	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Looi Ming Ming has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Credit and Security	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Looi Ming Ming has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Landlord and Tenant Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Looi Ming Ming has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Personal Injury	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Looi Ming Ming has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Performance Bond	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Looi Ming Ming has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Injunctions	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Looi Ming Ming has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Commercial Disputes	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Looi Ming Ming has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Misrepresentation	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Looi Ming Ming has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Vicarious liability	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Looi Ming Ming has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Looi Ming Ming has been affiliated with 4 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 6 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Eldan Law LLP	6 cases	46% of cases	Lam Wing Yee Jane v Realstar Premier: Negligent Misrepresentation in Property Redevelopment(Dec 2023) M Asset Pte Ltd v Inngroup Pte Ltd: Breach of Settlement Agreement & Damages for Loss of Tenancy(May 2021) Inngroup Pte Ltd v M Asset Pte Ltd: Breach of Settlement Agreement for Shophouse Renovation(Sep 2020)
Rajah and Tann	4 cases	31% of cases	Yee Hong v Powen: Arbitrator Removal for Improper Conduct in Construction Arbitration(Jun 2005) Lee Tat v Management Corp: Issue Estoppel & Right of Way Dispute(Apr 2005) Lee Tat Development v Management Corp: Issue Estoppel & Right of Way Dispute(Sep 2004)
Rajah & Tann LLP	2 cases	15% of cases	Management Corporation v Lee Tat: Dispute over Right of Way and Reconstitution of Court of Appeal(Oct 2009) Lee Tat v MCST Plan No 301: Easement Extinguishment & Right of Way Dispute(Nov 2008)
Rajah & Tann	1 cases	8% of cases	Grange Heights MCST v Lee Tat: Right of Way Dispute Over Servient Tenement(Mar 2007)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Looi Ming Ming's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 2.5
Complex Cases: 2 (15%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	42.0 parties avg	2.0	31%
Partial	34.0 parties avg	4.0	23%
Won	62.0 parties avg	2.0	46%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2004	24.0 parties avg	4.0
2005	22.0 parties avg	2.0
2007	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2008	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2009	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2012	22.0 parties avg	2.0
2019	14.0 parties avg	4.0
2020	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2021	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2023	12.0 parties avg	2.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	4(31%)	31%
Partial	3(23%)	23%
Won	6(46%)	46%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	6,795,242.58	970,748.947 cases	7

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2004	2 11	Partial: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2005	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2007	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2008	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2009	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2012	2 11	Partial: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2019	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)
2020	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2021	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2023	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 13 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Lam Wing Yee Jane v Realstar Premier: Negligent Misrepresentation in Property Redevelopment 04 Dec 2023 Lam Wing Yee Jane (Claimant)Lost	04 Dec 2023	Lam Wing Yee Jane (Claimant): Claim DismissedThe claimant's claim for negligent misrepresentation was dismissed. No damages were awarded. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
2	M Asset Pte Ltd v Inngroup Pte Ltd: Breach of Settlement Agreement & Damages for Loss of Tenancy 11 May 2021 Inngroup Pte Ltd (Respondent)Won	11 May 2021	Inngroup Pte Ltd (Respondent): Judgment for RespondentJudgment for the Respondent; damages awarded in the amount of $2,890,000. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
3	Inngroup Pte Ltd v M Asset Pte Ltd: Breach of Settlement Agreement for Shophouse Renovation 15 Sep 2020 Inngroup Pte Ltd (Plaintiff)Won	15 Sep 2020	Inngroup Pte Ltd (Plaintiff): Judgment for PlaintiffJudgment for the Plaintiff in the amount of $2,893,343.50 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
4	Ryobi Tactics v UES Holdings: Unconscionable Call on Performance Bonds in Construction Subcontracts 21 Jan 2019 UES Holdings Pte Ltd (Defendant)Partial	21 Jan 2019	UES Holdings Pte Ltd (Defendant): Applications for injunctions allowed in partThe court allowed the plaintiff's applications for injunctions restraining the call of performance bonds for the Changi and Jurong projects, but not for the Chestnut project.
5	RN & Associates v TPX Builders: Setting Aside Adjudication Determination Under Security of Payment Act 06 Nov 2012 TPX Builders Pte Ltd (Defendant)Won	06 Nov 2012	TPX Builders Pte Ltd (Defendant): Adjudication Determination upheldThe court upheld the adjudication determination in favor of TPX Builders, ordering RN & Associates to pay $996,899.08. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
6	Garden Hub v Attorney-General: Relief Against Forfeiture & State Tenancy Termination 30 Jan 2012 Garden Hub Pte Ltd (Plaintiff)Partial	30 Jan 2012	Garden Hub Pte Ltd (Plaintiff): Statement of claim struck out in partThe plaintiff's statement of claim was struck out in part, specifically the claims related to breach of contract and rectification, but the claims related to relief against forfeiture and the validity of the termination notice were allowed to proceed.
7	Management Corporation v Lee Tat: Dispute over Right of Way and Reconstitution of Court of Appeal 19 Oct 2009 Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301 (Plaintiff)Lost	19 Oct 2009	Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301 (Plaintiff): Application DismissedPlaintiff's application for a declaration that the Court of Appeal has the jurisdiction to reopen and set aside its earlier decision was dismissed. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
8	Lee Tat v MCST Plan No 301: Easement Extinguishment & Right of Way Dispute 30 Nov 2008 Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301 (Respondent)Lost	30 Nov 2008	Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301 (Respondent): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed; the MC is not entitled to repair and/or maintain the Right of Way.
9	Grange Heights MCST v Lee Tat: Right of Way Dispute Over Servient Tenement 04 Mar 2007 Management Corporation of Grange Heights Strata Title No 301 (Plaintiff)Won	04 Mar 2007	Management Corporation of Grange Heights Strata Title No 301 (Plaintiff): Declaration GrantedDeclaration granted that the plaintiff was entitled to repair and/or maintain the right of way at its own expense, subject to obtaining such regulatory approval as may be required.
10	Yee Hong v Powen: Arbitrator Removal for Improper Conduct in Construction Arbitration 30 Jun 2005 Yee Hong Pte Ltd (Applicant)Lost	30 Jun 2005	Yee Hong Pte Ltd (Applicant): Application DismissedApplication to remove arbitrator dismissed with costs fixed at $15,000 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
11	Lee Tat v Management Corp: Issue Estoppel & Right of Way Dispute 11 Apr 2005 Management Corporation of Grange Heights Strata Title No 301 (Respondent)Won	11 Apr 2005	Management Corporation of Grange Heights Strata Title No 301 (Respondent): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed with costs; security deposit released to the respondent to account for its costs. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
12	Lee Tat Development v Management Corp: Issue Estoppel & Right of Way Dispute 27 Sep 2004 Management Corporation of Grange Heights Strata Title No 301 (Defendant, Respondent)Won	27 Sep 2004	Management Corporation of Grange Heights Strata Title No 301 (Defendant, Respondent): Judgment in favor of Management CorporationThe court found that Lee Tat was estopped from claiming the main reliefs sought, resulting in a judgment in favor of the Management Corporation.
13	Afro-Asia Shipping v Da Zhong Investment: Costs Allocation for Trevi & CKK after Partially Successful Claim 20 May 2004 Chin Kok Kwong Design and Build Pte Ltd (Defendant)Partial	20 May 2004	Chin Kok Kwong Design and Build Pte Ltd (Defendant): Partial WinCKK was awarded 85% of their costs of defending the plaintiffs' claim with respect to liability. The costs of assessment will be determined by the Registrar. (Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).