Mario Tjong

Mario Tjong is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2010 to 2010. The lawyer has handled 2 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 1 law firm. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in statutory demand and moneylenders act. Their track record shows a 50.0% success rate in resolved cases.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Mario Tjong has demonstrated expertise across 7 primary practice areas, with significant experience in bankruptcy and contract law.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Bankruptcy	2 cases	22% of total caseload	Experienced68% relevance score	Mario Tjong has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 22% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	2 cases	22% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	Mario Tjong has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 22% of their total caseload.
Banking Law	1 cases	11% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Mario Tjong has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.
Summary Judgement	1 cases	11% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Mario Tjong has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.
Company Law	1 cases	11% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Mario Tjong has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.
Statutory Demand	1 cases	11% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Mario Tjong has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.
Moneylenders Act	1 cases	11% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Mario Tjong has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Mario Tjong has been affiliated with 1 law firm. The most active affiliation involves 2 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Ng Chong & Hue LLC	2 cases	100% of cases	Agus Anwar v Gainsford Capital Ltd: Setting Aside Statutory Demand for Disputed Debt(Jan 2010) Agus Anwar v Orion Oil Ltd: Moneylender Act & Enforceability of Loan Contracts(Jan 2010)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Mario Tjong's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 2.0
Complex Cases: 0 (0%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	12.0 parties avg	2.0	50%
Won	12.0 parties avg	2.0	50%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2010	22.0 parties avg	2.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	1(50%)	50%
Won	1(50%)	50%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	1,200.00	1,200.001 cases	1

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2010	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 2 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Agus Anwar v Gainsford Capital Ltd: Setting Aside Statutory Demand for Disputed Debt 05 Jan 2010 Agus Anwar (Plaintiff, Respondent)Won	05 Jan 2010	Agus Anwar (Plaintiff, Respondent): Appeal AllowedAppeal allowed; statutory demand set aside. Costs of $1,200 to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
2	Agus Anwar v Orion Oil Ltd: Moneylender Act & Enforceability of Loan Contracts 05 Jan 2010 Agus Anwar (Plaintiff, Respondent)Lost	05 Jan 2010	Agus Anwar (Plaintiff, Respondent): Appeal DismissedThe plaintiff's appeal to set aside the statutory demand was dismissed.