Mavis Chionh

Mavis Chionh is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2008 to 2017. The lawyer has handled 9 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 1 law firm. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in criminal procedure and constitutional law. Their track record shows a 56.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 1 complex case, representing 11% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Mavis Chionh has demonstrated expertise across 29 primary practice areas, with significant experience in criminal law and administrative law.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Criminal Law	7 cases	14% of total caseload	Experienced69% relevance score	Mavis Chionh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 7 cases which represents 14% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	5 cases	10% of total caseload	Experienced56% relevance score	Mavis Chionh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 5 cases which represents 10% of their total caseload.
Criminal Procedure	3 cases	6% of total caseload	Highly Specialized78% relevance score	Mavis Chionh has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	3 cases	6% of total caseload	General Practice18% relevance score	Mavis Chionh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Constitutional Law	3 cases	6% of total caseload	Highly Specialized78% relevance score	Mavis Chionh has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Misuse of Drugs Act	3 cases	6% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Mavis Chionh has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Criminal Revision	2 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	Mavis Chionh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Statutory Interpretation	2 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Mavis Chionh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Evidence Law	2 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Mavis Chionh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	2 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Mavis Chionh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Companies Act	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Mavis Chionh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Judicial Review	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Mavis Chionh has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Evidence	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Mavis Chionh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Mavis Chionh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Prosecutorial Discretion	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Mavis Chionh has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Penal Code	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Mavis Chionh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Marriage of Convenience	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Mavis Chionh has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Immigration Offences	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Mavis Chionh has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Prostitution	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Mavis Chionh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Work Visa	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Mavis Chionh has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Mavis Chionh has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Drug Crimes	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Mavis Chionh has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Employment Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Mavis Chionh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Property Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Mavis Chionh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Sentencing	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Mavis Chionh has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Contempt of Court	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Mavis Chionh has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Employment of Foreign Manpower Act	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Mavis Chionh 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 Practice10% relevance score	Mavis Chionh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Defamation	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Mavis Chionh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Mavis Chionh has been affiliated with 1 law firm. The most active affiliation involves 9 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Attorney-General’s Chambers	9 cases	100% of cases	Muhammad Nur bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor: Breach of Probation and Reformative Training Eligibility(Nov 2017) Ahunbay v PP: Interpreting Section 370 CPC on Seized Property & Right to Be Heard(Feb 2015) Mehra Radhika v Public Prosecutor: Marriage of Convenience & Immigration Advantage(Oct 2014)

Case Complexity Analysis

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

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 2.3
Complex Cases: 1 (11%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	12.0 parties avg	2.0	11%
Neutral	22.5 parties avg	2.5	22%
Partial	12.0 parties avg	2.0	11%
Won	52.4 parties avg	2.4	56%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2008	14.0 parties avg	4.0
2009	22.0 parties avg	2.0
2012	22.0 parties avg	2.0
2013	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2014	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2015	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2017	12.0 parties avg	2.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	1(11%)	11%
Neutral	2(22%)	22%
Partial	1(11%)	11%
Won	5(56%)	56%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	25,600.00	8,533.333 cases	3

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2008	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2009	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2012	2 2	Won: 2 cases (100.0%)
2013	1 1	Neutral: 1 cases (100.0%)
2014	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)
2015	1 1	Neutral: 1 cases (100.0%)
2017	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 9 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Muhammad Nur bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor: Breach of Probation and Reformative Training Eligibility 27 Nov 2017 Public Prosecutor (Respondent)Won	27 Nov 2017	Public Prosecutor (Respondent): Appeal UpheldThe Public Prosecutor's appeal was upheld, and the applicant was deemed ineligible for reformative training.
2	Ahunbay v PP: Interpreting Section 370 CPC on Seized Property & Right to Be Heard 10 Feb 2015 Public Prosecutor (Respondent)Neutral	10 Feb 2015	Public Prosecutor (Respondent): Questions of law answeredThe court answered the questions of law referred against the Public Prosecutor.
3	Mehra Radhika v Public Prosecutor: Marriage of Convenience & Immigration Advantage 27 Oct 2014 Public Prosecutor (Respondent)Partial	27 Oct 2014	Public Prosecutor (Respondent): Appeal Partially LostThe appeal was allowed in part, resulting in a reduced sentence for the appellant.
4	PP v Goldring: Common Law Right of Access to Seized Documents & Criminal Case Disclosure 07 Nov 2013 Public Prosecutor (Applicant)Neutral	07 Nov 2013	Public Prosecutor (Applicant): NeutralThe Public Prosecutor referred six questions of law for determination by the court.
5	Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor: Selective Prosecution & Constitutional Right to Equal Protection 03 Apr 2012 Public Prosecutor (Respondent)Won	03 Apr 2012	Public Prosecutor (Respondent): Motion dismissedThe Public Prosecutor successfully defended against Yong Vui Kong's motion.
6	Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General: Constitutional Challenge to Drug Trafficking Conviction 09 Jan 2012 Attorney-General (Respondent)Won	09 Jan 2012	Attorney-General (Respondent): Motion DismissedThe Attorney-General successfully defended against the motion to re-open the judgment.
7	Bao Haiyan v Attorney-General: Judicial Review of MOM's Decision to Cancel 'S Class' Work Pass 29 Sep 2009 Attorney-General (Respondent)Won	29 Sep 2009	Attorney-General (Respondent): Judgment for RespondentApplication for leave to apply for a mandatory order was dismissed with costs.
8	Lai Swee Lin Linda v Attorney-General: Reinstatement of Action for Wrongful Termination 16 Feb 2009 Attorney-General (Defendant)Lost	16 Feb 2009	Attorney-General (Defendant): Appeal AllowedThe defendant has appealed against the decision to reinstate the action. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff’s disbursement fixed at $600 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
9	Attorney-General v Hertzberg Daniel: Contempt of Court & Freedom of Speech 24 Nov 2008 Attorney-General (Applicant)Won	24 Nov 2008	Attorney-General (Applicant): Orders of committal for contempt granted against the third respondentOrders of committal for contempt granted against the third respondent, Dow Jones Publishing Company (Asia) Inc. Fine of $25,000 to be paid within 7 days. (Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).