Mark

Mark is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2021 to 2021. The lawyer has handled 5 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 2 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in costs and shares. Their track record shows a 20.0% success rate in resolved cases.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Mark has demonstrated expertise across 32 primary practice areas, with significant experience in estoppel and civil procedure.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Estoppel	3 cases	7% of total caseload	General Practice25% relevance score	Mark has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	3 cases	7% of total caseload	Experienced73% relevance score	Mark has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Arbitration	3 cases	7% of total caseload	General Practice22% relevance score	Mark has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	3 cases	7% of total caseload	General Practice22% relevance score	Mark has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Company Law	3 cases	7% of total caseload	Experienced58% relevance score	Mark has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Costs	2 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized88% relevance score	Mark has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Shares	2 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Mark has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Corporate Law	2 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Mark has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Commercial Disputes	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Mark has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Evidence Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Mark has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Jurisdiction	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Mark has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Apparent bias	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Mark has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Res Judicata	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Mark has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Duty of Candour	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Mark has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Financial Reporting Standards	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Mark has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Share Valuation	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Mark has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Judicial Review	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Mark has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Evidence	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Mark has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Summary Judgement	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Mark has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Valuation of Shares	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Mark has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Singapore International Commercial Court Practice	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Mark has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Costs against non-party	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Mark has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Joint and several liability for costs	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Mark has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Mark has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Excessive judicial interference	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Mark has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Business Litigation	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Mark has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Civil Litigation	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Mark has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Mark has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Corporate Litigation	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Mark has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Defamation Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Mark has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Patents	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Mark has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Minority Oppression	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Mark has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Mark has been affiliated with 2 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 4 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP	4 cases	80% of cases	Kiri Industries Ltd v Senda International Capital Ltd: Costs Against Non-Party(Dec 2021) Kiri Industries v Senda International: Minority Oppression & Share Valuation(Dec 2021) Kiri Industries Ltd v Senda International Capital Ltd: Valuation of Shares in DyStar(Jun 2021)
That.Legal LLC	1 cases	20% of cases	Soh Rui Yong v Liew Wei Yen Ashley: Defamation Suit, Excessive Judicial Interference, Apparent Bias(Apr 2021)

Case Complexity Analysis

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

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 2.8
Complex Cases: 0 (0%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	33.0 parties avg	3.0	60%
Partial	12.0 parties avg	2.0	20%
Won	13.0 parties avg	3.0	20%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2021	52.8 parties avg	2.8

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	3(60%)	60%
Partial	1(20%)	20%
Won	1(20%)	20%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	8,111,642.11	2,703,880.703 cases	3
USD	481,600,000.00	481,600,000.001 cases	1

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2021	5 311	Lost: 3 cases (60.0%) Partial: 1 cases (20.0%) Won: 1 cases (20.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 5 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Kiri Industries Ltd v Senda International Capital Ltd: Costs Against Non-Party 26 Dec 2021 Senda International Capital Ltd (Defendant)Won	26 Dec 2021	Senda International Capital Ltd (Defendant): Application deniedApplication to make Longsheng jointly and severally liable for Senda's costs was denied. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
2	Kiri Industries v Senda International: Minority Oppression & Share Valuation 07 Dec 2021 Senda International Capital Ltd (Defendant)Lost	07 Dec 2021	Senda International Capital Ltd (Defendant): Costs to be paidSenda International Capital Ltd to pay costs of S$4,960,815.26 and disbursements of S$3,100,826.85 to Kiri Industries Ltd (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
3	Kiri Industries Ltd v Senda International Capital Ltd: Valuation of Shares in DyStar 20 Jun 2021 Senda International Capital Ltd (Defendant)Lost	20 Jun 2021	Senda International Capital Ltd (Defendant): Valuation of shares determinedFinal valuation of Kiri's shares adjudged to be US$481.6m, which Senda must pay for the buy-out order.
4	Kiri Industries v Senda International Capital: Share Valuation & Oppression 02 Jun 2021 Senda International Capital Ltd (Defendant)Lost	02 Jun 2021	Senda International Capital Ltd (Defendant): Shares to be purchasedSenda International Capital Ltd was ordered to purchase Kiri Industries Ltd's shares in DyStar Global Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
5	Soh Rui Yong v Liew Wei Yen Ashley: Defamation Suit, Excessive Judicial Interference, Apparent Bias 29 Apr 2021 Liew Wei Yen Ashley (Respondent, Plaintiff)Partial	29 Apr 2021	Liew Wei Yen Ashley (Respondent, Plaintiff): Appeal allowed in partRegistrar's Appeal from the State Courts No 35 of 2020 and Registrar's Appeal from the State Courts No 25 of 2020 were dismissed. Registrar's Appeal from the State Courts No 24 of 2020 was allowed and the orders made in the application below were set aside. No monetary amount was specified. Assumed SGD as the jurisdiction is Singapore.