Mark Seah

Mark Seah is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2006 to 2023. The lawyer has handled 14 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 3 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in trust law and arbitration. Their track record shows a 27.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 6 complex cases, representing 43% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Mark Seah has demonstrated expertise across 48 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and breach of contract.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	11 cases	14% of total caseload	Experienced51% relevance score	Mark Seah has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 11 cases which represents 14% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	4 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced66% relevance score	Mark Seah has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Trust Law	3 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized76% relevance score	Mark Seah has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Commercial Disputes	3 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Mark Seah has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Arbitration	3 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Mark Seah has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	3 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice38% relevance score	Mark Seah has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Evidence	2 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	Mark Seah has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Chancery and Equity	2 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced68% relevance score	Mark Seah has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Employment Law	2 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized88% relevance score	Mark Seah has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Property Law	2 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced57% relevance score	Mark Seah has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Recourse against award	2 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced68% relevance score	Mark Seah has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Restraint of Trade	2 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Mark Seah has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Company Law	2 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	Mark Seah has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Resulting Trust	2 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Mark Seah has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Loss of Earning Capacity	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Mark Seah has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Shareholder Disputes	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice35% relevance score	Mark Seah has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Summary Judgment	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Mark Seah has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Telecommunications Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Mark Seah has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Torts	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Mark Seah has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Transportation	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Mark Seah has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Copyrights	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Mark Seah has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Measure of Damages	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Mark Seah has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Evidence Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Mark Seah has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
International Commercial Arbitration	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Mark Seah has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Traffic Accident Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Mark Seah has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Contractual discretions	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Mark Seah has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Malicious Falsehood	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Mark Seah has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
International Arbitration Act	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Mark Seah has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Estoppel	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Mark Seah has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Conveyancing	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Mark Seah has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Mark Seah has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Defamation	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Mark Seah has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Damages	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Mark Seah has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Forfeiture Provision	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Mark Seah has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Assessment of Damages	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Mark Seah has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Charitable Giving	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Mark Seah has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Automobile Accidents	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Mark Seah has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Bailment	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Mark Seah has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Non-Compete Agreement	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Mark Seah has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Valuation of Shares	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	Mark Seah has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Constructive Trust	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Mark Seah has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Carriage of Goods by Air and Land	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Mark Seah has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Corporate Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice15% relevance score	Mark Seah has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Estate Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Mark Seah has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Intellectual Property Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Mark Seah has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Partnership Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Mark Seah 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	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Mark Seah has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Pleadings	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Mark Seah has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Mark Seah has been affiliated with 3 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 8 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Rodyk & Davidson LLP	8 cases	57% of cases	AMZ v AXX: Breach of Contract, Repudiatory Breach, and Damages in Oil Supply Agreement Arbitration(Oct 2015) Mano Vikrant Singh v Cargill: Restraint of Trade & Forfeiture of Employee Benefits(Aug 2012) Mano Vikrant Singh v Cargill: Enforceability of Forfeiture Provision in Incentive Plan(Nov 2011)
Rodyk & Davidson	4 cases	29% of cases	T2 Networks v Nasioncom: Breach of Contract, Settlement Agreement & Penalty Clause(Nov 2007) Ong & Ong Architects v Yee Wei Chi: Summary Judgment & Closure of Pleadings After Adding New Party(Jul 2007) Ng Chin Siau v How Kim Chuan: Appeal Against Arbitration Award on Partnership Valuation(Mar 2007)
Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP	2 cases	14% of cases	Karan Bagga v Stichting Chemical Distribution Institute: Defamation and Malicious Falsehood Claim(Nov 2023) Independent State of Papua New Guinea v PNG Sustainable Development Program Ltd: Corporate Governance Dispute(Apr 2019)

Case Complexity Analysis

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

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 4.5
Complex Cases: 6 (43%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	105.3 parties avg	5.3	71%
Neutral	14.0 parties avg	4.0	7%
Won	42.5 parties avg	2.5	29%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2006	14.0 parties avg	4.0
2007	48.8 parties avg	8.8
2008	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2009	23.3 parties avg	3.3
2010	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2011	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2012	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2015	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2019	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2023	12.0 parties avg	2.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	10(67%)	67%
Neutral	1(7%)	7%
Won	4(27%)	27%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	0.00	0.0010 cases	10
USD	0.00	0.001 cases	1

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2006	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2007	5 41	Lost: 4 cases (80.0%) Neutral: 1 cases (20.0%)
2008	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2009	2 2	Lost: 2 cases (100.0%)
2010	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2011	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2012	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2015	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2019	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2023	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 14 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Karan Bagga v Stichting Chemical Distribution Institute: Defamation and Malicious Falsehood Claim 08 Nov 2023 Karan Bagga (Plaintiff)Lost	08 Nov 2023	Karan Bagga (Plaintiff): Claim DismissedPlaintiff's claims in defamation and malicious falsehood were dismissed.
2	Independent State of Papua New Guinea v PNG Sustainable Development Program Ltd: Corporate Governance Dispute 01 Apr 2019 PNG Sustainable Development Program Ltd (Defendant)Won	01 Apr 2019	PNG Sustainable Development Program Ltd (Defendant): Judgment for DefendantJudgment in favour of the Defendant. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
3	AMZ v AXX: Breach of Contract, Repudiatory Breach, and Damages in Oil Supply Agreement Arbitration 29 Oct 2015 AXX (Defendant, Respondent)Won	29 Oct 2015	AXX (Defendant, Respondent): Application dismissedApplication to set aside the tribunal's award was dismissed with costs. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
4	Mano Vikrant Singh v Cargill: Restraint of Trade & Forfeiture of Employee Benefits 06 Aug 2012 Mano Vikrant Singh (Appellant)Won	06 Aug 2012	Mano Vikrant Singh (Appellant): Appeal AllowedAppeal allowed with costs.
5	Mano Vikrant Singh v Cargill: Enforceability of Forfeiture Provision in Incentive Plan 07 Nov 2011 Mano Vikrant Singh (Plaintiff)Lost	07 Nov 2011	Mano Vikrant Singh (Plaintiff): Claim DismissedThe plaintiff's claim for a declaration that the forfeiture provision is void and for payment of US$1,741,894 in deferred incentive payments was dismissed. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
6	Zaiton Bee Bee v Chan Poh Teong: Assessment of Damages for Personal Injury in Traffic Accident 19 Apr 2010 Chan Poh Teong (Defendant, Respondent)Lost	19 Apr 2010	Chan Poh Teong (Defendant, Respondent): Appeal dismissedDefendant's appeal against the award for pre-trial loss of earnings was dismissed (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
7	Loo Chay Sit v Estate of Loo Chay Loo: Resulting Trust & Property Ownership Dispute 06 Oct 2009 Loo Chay Sit (Appellant)Lost	06 Oct 2009	Loo Chay Sit (Appellant): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed with costs.
8	Tan Chan Tee v Chen Tsui Yu: Resulting Trusts & Property Ownership Dispute 16 Feb 2009 Loo Chay Sit (Plaintiff, Respondent)Lost	16 Feb 2009	Loo Chay Sit (Plaintiff, Respondent): Counterclaim AllowedCounterclaim allowed against Loo Chay Sit. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
9	Virtual Map v SLA: Copyright Infringement of Street Directory Data 24 Mar 2008 Virtual Map (Singapore) Pte Ltd (Appellant, Defendant)Lost	24 Mar 2008	Virtual Map (Singapore) Pte Ltd (Appellant, Defendant): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed with costs. (Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
10	T2 Networks v Nasioncom: Breach of Contract, Settlement Agreement & Penalty Clause 08 Nov 2007 Nasioncom Sdn Bhd (Defendant)Lost	08 Nov 2007	Nasioncom Sdn Bhd (Defendant): Counterclaim DismissedCounterclaim dismissed; no set-off recognized.
11	Ng Chin Siau v How Kim Chuan: Leave to Appeal Arbitration Award Refused 26 Sep 2007 How Kim Chuan (Applicant, Defendant)Lost	26 Sep 2007	How Kim Chuan (Applicant, Defendant): Application LostApplication for leave to appeal was dismissed.
12	Ong & Ong Architects v Yee Wei Chi: Summary Judgment & Closure of Pleadings After Adding New Party 04 Jul 2007 Ong & Ong Pte Ltd (Plaintiff)Neutral	04 Jul 2007	Ong & Ong Pte Ltd (Plaintiff): Prayer one still remainsPrayer one of the defendants’ summons still remains as against the second plaintiff. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
13	Ng Chin Siau v How Kim Chuan: Appeal Against Arbitration Award on Partnership Valuation 05 Mar 2007 How Kim Chuan (Defendant)Lost	05 Mar 2007	How Kim Chuan (Defendant): Application dismissedApplication for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal dismissed with costs. The court found no question of law of general importance or special reason to warrant an appeal. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
14	Sun Tech v FedEx: Hijacking & Bailee's Duty of Care in Air Carriage 19 Apr 2006 Federal Express Services (M) Sdn Bhd (Defendant)Won	19 Apr 2006	Federal Express Services (M) Sdn Bhd (Defendant): Judgment for DefendantThe court found in favor of Federal Express Services (M) Sdn Bhd, dismissing the plaintiff's claim with costs.