M P Rai

M P Rai is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2004 to 2009. The lawyer has handled 6 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 2 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in employment law and workers compensation. Their track record shows a 17.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 1 complex case, representing 17% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

M P Rai has demonstrated expertise across 25 primary practice areas, with significant experience in employment law and contract law.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Employment Law	3 cases	10% of total caseload	Highly Specialized79% relevance score	M P Rai has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 10% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	2 cases	6% of total caseload	General Practice33% relevance score	M P Rai has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Workers Compensation	2 cases	6% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	M P Rai has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	2 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced53% relevance score	M P Rai has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Negligence	2 cases	6% of total caseload	Highly Specialized83% relevance score	M P Rai has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Insurance Bad Faith	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	M P Rai has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Personal Injury	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	M P Rai has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Torts	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	M P Rai has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Contributory negligence	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	M P Rai has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Criminal Procedure	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	M P Rai has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Road Traffic Act	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	M P Rai has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Breach of Duty	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	M P Rai has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Legal Profession Act	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	M P Rai has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Breach of Trust	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	M P Rai has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Breach of Statutory Duty	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	M P Rai has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Evidence	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	M P Rai has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Duty to Account	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	M P Rai has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Show cause action	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	M P Rai has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Employers’ duties	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	M P Rai has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Appellate Practice	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	M P Rai has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Hearsay	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	M P Rai has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Automobile Accidents	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	M P Rai has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Civil Litigation	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	M P Rai has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	M P Rai has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Criminal Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	M P Rai has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

M P Rai has been affiliated with 2 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 3 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Cooma & Rai	3 cases	50% of cases	Chua Kee Lam v Moksha: Negligence, Road Accidents, and Admissibility of Evidence(May 2009) Koh Toi Choi v Lim Geok Hong: Striking Out Defence & Leave to Appeal(May 2007) Poh Kwee Eng v Hua Goi Co.: Employer's Duty of Care and Statutory Obligations under Factories Act(Dec 2006)
Cooma and Rai	3 cases	50% of cases	Magaforce Construction v Khamso Wirat: Workmen's Compensation for Sub-Subcontractor's Employee Injured in Traffic Accident(Sep 2005) Saldur Rahman v Mayban General Assurance: Workman's Compensation & Civil Suit Conflict(May 2005) Law Society v Ezekiel Caleb Charles James: Criminal Breach of Trust & Fitness for Legal Profession(Feb 2004)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of M P Rai's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 3.2
Complex Cases: 1 (17%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	42.8 parties avg	2.8	67%
Neutral	15.0 parties avg	5.0	17%
Won	12.0 parties avg	2.0	17%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2004	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2005	24.0 parties avg	4.0
2006	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2007	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2009	13.0 parties avg	3.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of M P Rai's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	4(67%)	67%
Neutral	1(17%)	17%
Won	1(17%)	17%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	0.00	0.001 cases	1

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2004	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2005	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Neutral: 1 cases (50.0%)
2006	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2007	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2009	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 6 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Chua Kee Lam v Moksha: Negligence, Road Accidents, and Admissibility of Evidence 05 May 2009 Big-Foot Logistic Pte Ltd (Respondent)Lost	05 May 2009	Big-Foot Logistic Pte Ltd (Respondent): Liable for Contributory NegligenceFound liable for one-third of the accident due to contributory negligence. The currency is assumed to be SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
2	Koh Toi Choi v Lim Geok Hong: Striking Out Defence & Leave to Appeal 28 May 2007 Ang Kee Huat Charcoal Trader (suing as a firm) (Defendant)Lost	28 May 2007	Ang Kee Huat Charcoal Trader (suing as a firm) (Defendant): Appeal allowedKoh's application for leave to appeal was allowed, meaning Ang Kee Huat Charcoal Trader lost the application to strike out the defence.
3	Poh Kwee Eng v Hua Goi Co.: Employer's Duty of Care and Statutory Obligations under Factories Act 20 Dec 2006 Hua Goi Co. (Pte) Ltd (Defendant)Lost	20 Dec 2006	Hua Goi Co. (Pte) Ltd (Defendant): Liability EstablishedLiability established against the defendant; damages to be assessed. The currency is assumed to be SGD, the currency of Singapore.
4	Magaforce Construction v Khamso Wirat: Workmen's Compensation for Sub-Subcontractor's Employee Injured in Traffic Accident 28 Sep 2005 Tenet Insurance Co Ltd (Respondent)Neutral	28 Sep 2005	Tenet Insurance Co Ltd (Respondent): Not liable for compensationCourt found that Tenet was not liable for compensation as Nisshin was not the principal under s 17.
5	Saldur Rahman v Mayban General Assurance: Workman's Compensation & Civil Suit Conflict 10 May 2005 San Hup Seng Engineering Pte Ltd (Respondent)Lost	10 May 2005	San Hup Seng Engineering Pte Ltd (Respondent): Application DismissedThe court dismissed the respondent's arguments.
6	Law Society v Ezekiel Caleb Charles James: Criminal Breach of Trust & Fitness for Legal Profession 22 Feb 2004 Law Society of Singapore (Applicant)Won	22 Feb 2004	Law Society of Singapore (Applicant): Application GrantedThe Law Society's application to make absolute the order to show cause was granted.