Melissa Mak

Melissa Mak is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2017 to 2022. The lawyer has handled 9 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 1 law firm. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in civil practice and shares. Their track record shows a 67.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 8 complex cases, representing 89% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Melissa Mak has demonstrated expertise across 53 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and misrepresentation.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	6 cases	7% of total caseload	General Practice46% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 6 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Misrepresentation	5 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 5 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Trust Law	4 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced54% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Arbitration	4 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice43% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 4 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Banking and Finance	3 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	3 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Melissa Mak 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	General Practice31% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Company Law	3 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced58% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	3 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced52% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Negligence	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced68% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Unjust Enrichment	2 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice28% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Shares	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized78% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Conflict of Laws	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized84% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Summary Judgement	2 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice12% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Minority Oppression	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Costs	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Estoppel	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Agency Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Valuation	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Fraudulent misrepresentation	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Dishonest assistance	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice25% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Interpretation of contractual terms	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Stay of court proceedings	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Interest	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Valuation of Shares	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Constructive Trust	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Resulting Trust	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Express Trust	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Equity	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Equitable Mortgage	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Equitable Charge	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Bills of Exchange	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Inducing Breach of Contract	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Fictitious Purchase Scheme	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Financial Services	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Discount on minority shares	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Agency and Distributorships	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Asset Protection	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Commercial Fraud	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Corporate Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Corporate Litigation	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Litigation	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Personal Injury	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Property Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Torts	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Fiduciary Duties	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice15% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Jurisdiction	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Natural forum	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Knowing Receipt	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice25% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Damages Assessment	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Letter of Credit Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Melissa Mak has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Melissa Mak has been affiliated with 1 law firm. The most active affiliation involves 9 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Allen & Gledhill LLP	9 cases	100% of cases	Acute Result Holdings v CGS-CIMB: Resulting Trusts, Negligence & Duty of Care(Feb 2022) EFG Bank AG v Surewin Worldwide: Costs Allocation After Security Interest Ruling(Jan 2022) Bank of China v BP Singapore: Negligence, Fraud & Letter of Credit Dispute(May 2021)

Case Complexity Analysis

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

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 5.8
Complex Cases: 8 (89%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	36.0 parties avg	6.0	33%
Won	65.7 parties avg	5.7	67%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2017	16.0 parties avg	6.0
2018	19.0 parties avg	9.0
2019	36.0 parties avg	6.0
2020	16.0 parties avg	6.0
2021	15.0 parties avg	5.0
2022	23.0 parties avg	3.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	3(33%)	33%
Won	6(67%)	67%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	4,988,000.00	1,247,000.004 cases	4

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2017	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2018	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2019	3 12	Lost: 1 cases (33.3%) Won: 2 cases (66.7%)
2020	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2021	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2022	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 9 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Acute Result Holdings v CGS-CIMB: Resulting Trusts, Negligence & Duty of Care 27 Feb 2022 CGS-CIMB Securities (Singapore) Pte Ltd (formerly known as CIMB Securities (Singapore) Pte Ltd) (Defendant)Won	27 Feb 2022	CGS-CIMB Securities (Singapore) Pte Ltd (formerly known as CIMB Securities (Singapore) Pte Ltd) (Defendant): Judgment for DefendantJudgment in favour of the defendant; plaintiff's claim dismissed.
2	EFG Bank AG v Surewin Worldwide: Costs Allocation After Security Interest Ruling 30 Jan 2022 Singfor Life Insurance Co Ltd (Defendant)Lost	30 Jan 2022	Singfor Life Insurance Co Ltd (Defendant): Costs to be paid to PlaintiffThe second defendant shall pay to the plaintiff its costs of and incidental to this action in the sum of $588,000 as claimed. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
3	Bank of China v BP Singapore: Negligence, Fraud & Letter of Credit Dispute 30 May 2021 Bank of China Ltd, Singapore Branch (Plaintiff, Appellant)Won	30 May 2021	Bank of China Ltd, Singapore Branch (Plaintiff, Appellant): Appeal AllowedThe Bank's appeal was allowed, reinstating its claims against BP Singapore.
4	Kazzaz v Standard Chartered Bank: Costs Allocation in Banking Services Dispute 30 Aug 2020 Naushid Mithani (Defendant)Won	30 Aug 2020	Naushid Mithani (Defendant): Legal fees and disbursements to be borne by PlaintiffsDefendants' legal fees of S$1,100,000 to be borne by Plaintiffs. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
5	Kazzaz v. Standard Chartered Bank: Negligent Misrepresentation & Banking Advice 13 Oct 2019 Naushid Mithani (Defendant)Won	13 Oct 2019	Naushid Mithani (Defendant): Judgment for DefendantThe court found in favor of the defendant, dismissing all claims.
6	Thio Syn Pyn v Thio Syn Kym Wendy: Minority Oppression & Share Valuation 26 Mar 2019 Thio Syn Wee (Appellant)Lost	26 Mar 2019	Thio Syn Wee (Appellant): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed; costs of $28,000 (all-in) were to be paid by the Appellant to the Respondents. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
7	Ivanishvili v Credit Suisse: Forum Non Conveniens & Exclusive Jurisdiction in Trust Dispute 17 Jan 2019 Credit Suisse Trust Limited (Defendant)Won	17 Jan 2019	Credit Suisse Trust Limited (Defendant): Application for Stay GrantedApplication for stay of proceedings granted.
8	Thio Syn Kym Wendy v Thio Syn Pyn: Minority Oppression & Share Valuation in Malaysia Dairy Industries 12 Mar 2018 Thio Syn Wee (Defendant)Lost	12 Mar 2018	Thio Syn Wee (Defendant): Minority discount not appliedCourt ordered that no minority discount be applied to the sale of the plaintiff's shares in Malaysia Dairy Industries Pte Ltd. The currency is assumed to be SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
9	TMT Co. Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland: Stay of Proceedings & Natural Forum in Conflict of Laws & Arbitration 06 Feb 2017 Fred Goodwin (Respondent)Won	06 Feb 2017	Fred Goodwin (Respondent): Service Out of Jurisdiction Set AsideService out of jurisdiction against the 3rd Defendant was set aside.