Muthu Kumaran

Muthu Kumaran is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2000 to 2011. The lawyer has handled 6 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 5 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in civil practice and costs. Their track record shows a 50.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 4 complex cases, representing 67% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Muthu Kumaran has demonstrated expertise across 19 primary practice areas, with significant experience in civil procedure and contract law.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Civil Procedure	5 cases	16% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	Muthu Kumaran has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 5 cases which represents 16% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	4 cases	13% of total caseload	General Practice38% relevance score	Muthu Kumaran has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 4 cases which represents 13% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	3 cases	9% of total caseload	Highly Specialized76% relevance score	Muthu Kumaran has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 9% of their total caseload.
Costs	2 cases	6% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Muthu Kumaran has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Personal Injury	2 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced73% relevance score	Muthu Kumaran has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Estoppel	2 cases	6% of total caseload	General Practice37% relevance score	Muthu Kumaran has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Automobile Accidents	2 cases	6% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Muthu Kumaran has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Offer to Settle	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Muthu Kumaran has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Damages	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Muthu Kumaran has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Evidence	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Muthu Kumaran has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Guarantee	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Muthu Kumaran has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Crossclaims	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice25% relevance score	Muthu Kumaran has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Procedural Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Muthu Kumaran has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Civil Litigation	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Muthu Kumaran has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Negligence	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Muthu Kumaran has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Commercial Disputes	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Muthu Kumaran has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Evidence Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Muthu Kumaran has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Remedies	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Muthu Kumaran has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Principles	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Muthu Kumaran has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Muthu Kumaran has been affiliated with 5 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 2 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Bernard & Rada Law Corporation	2 cases	33% of cases	Vita Life Sciences v Arthur Andersen: Offer to Settle & Costs Dispute(Jun 2008) Woon Tek Seng v V Jayaraman: Discontinuance, Res Judicata & Abuse of Process(Mar 2008)
Justicius Law Corporation	1 cases	17% of cases	Tan Siok Yee v Chong Voon Kee Ivan: Determining Liability in Negligence for Motor Accident Injuries(Aug 2005)
Kumaran Law	1 cases	17% of cases	Mok Kwong Yue v Ding Leng Kong: Review of Taxation of Costs under Medway Principles(Nov 2011)
W T Woon & Company	1 cases	17% of cases	Tan Kok Ing v Ang Boon Aik: Deliberate Omission of Evidence & Impact on Fair Trial(Sep 2002)
WT Woon & Co	1 cases	17% of cases	Triangle Auto v Zheng Zi Construction: Forfeiture of Deposit & Damages for Breach of Contract(Nov 2000)

Case Complexity Analysis

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

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 4.6
Complex Cases: 4 (67%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	24.3 parties avg	4.3	33%
Partial	16.0 parties avg	6.0	17%
Won	33.0 parties avg	3.0	50%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2000	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2002	15.0 parties avg	5.0
2005	16.0 parties avg	6.0
2008	24.0 parties avg	4.0
2011	12.0 parties avg	2.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	2(33%)	33%
Partial	1(17%)	17%
Won	3(50%)	50%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	0.00	0.005 cases	5

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2000	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2002	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2005	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)
2008	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2011	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 6 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Mok Kwong Yue v Ding Leng Kong: Review of Taxation of Costs under Medway Principles 15 Nov 2011 Ding Leng Kong (Defendant)Won	15 Nov 2011	Ding Leng Kong (Defendant): Review upheldThe defendant successfully defended the review application; the Assistant Registrar's decision was upheld.
2	Vita Life Sciences v Arthur Andersen: Offer to Settle & Costs Dispute 08 Jun 2008 Vita Health Laboratories Pte Ltd (Plaintiff)Lost	08 Jun 2008	Vita Health Laboratories Pte Ltd (Plaintiff): Application dismissedDefendant's application for costs was dismissed. The currency is assumed to be SGD, the currency of Singapore.
3	Woon Tek Seng v V Jayaraman: Discontinuance, Res Judicata & Abuse of Process 17 Mar 2008 Rahimah Binti Haji Hashim (Plaintiff)Won	17 Mar 2008	Rahimah Binti Haji Hashim (Plaintiff): Appeal AllowedAppeal allowed; striking out application dismissed; interlocutory judgment entered for the plaintiff (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
4	Tan Siok Yee v Chong Voon Kee Ivan: Determining Liability in Negligence for Motor Accident Injuries 28 Aug 2005 Liao Hao Yu (Plaintiff)Partial	28 Aug 2005	Liao Hao Yu (Plaintiff): Interlocutory judgmentInterlocutory judgment for the plaintiffs with costs based on 50% liability (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
5	Tan Kok Ing v Ang Boon Aik: Deliberate Omission of Evidence & Impact on Fair Trial 16 Sep 2002 Tan Kok Ing (Plaintiff)Lost	16 Sep 2002	Tan Kok Ing (Plaintiff): Damages assessed at $0Plaintiff's damages were assessed at $0 due to the deliberate omission of relevant documents. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
6	Triangle Auto v Zheng Zi Construction: Forfeiture of Deposit & Damages for Breach of Contract 09 Nov 2000 Triangle Auto Pte Ltd (Plaintiff, Appellant)Won	09 Nov 2000	Triangle Auto Pte Ltd (Plaintiff, Appellant): Appeal AllowedPlaintiff's appeal was allowed, affirming their right to present their case on all heads of damage. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.