Navin Naidu

Navin Naidu is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2016 to 2017. The lawyer has handled 4 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 1 law firm. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in sentencing and criminal procedure. Their track record shows a 25.0% success rate in resolved cases.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Navin Naidu has demonstrated expertise across 23 primary practice areas, with significant experience in sentencing and criminal procedure.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Sentencing	4 cases	12% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Navin Naidu has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 12% of their total caseload.
Criminal Procedure	4 cases	12% of total caseload	Highly Specialized79% relevance score	Navin Naidu has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 12% of their total caseload.
Prevention of Corruption Act	3 cases	9% of total caseload	Highly Specialized82% relevance score	Navin Naidu has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 9% of their total caseload.
Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act	2 cases	6% of total caseload	Highly Specialized83% relevance score	Navin Naidu has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Property Law	2 cases	6% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	Navin Naidu has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Criminal Law	2 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced68% relevance score	Navin Naidu has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Negligent misrepresentation	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Navin Naidu has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Duty of Candour	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Navin Naidu has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Estoppel	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Navin Naidu has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Trust Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Navin Naidu has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Evidence	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Navin Naidu has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Navin Naidu has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Company Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Navin Naidu has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Appeal	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Navin Naidu has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Affidavits	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Navin Naidu has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Offences against public servants	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Navin Naidu has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Navin Naidu has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Penal Code	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Navin Naidu has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Banking and Finance	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Navin Naidu has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Bankruptcy	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Navin Naidu has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Corporate Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Navin Naidu has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Theft	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Navin Naidu has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Costs	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Navin Naidu has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Navin Naidu has been affiliated with 1 law firm. The most active affiliation involves 4 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Attorney-General’s Chambers	4 cases	100% of cases	PP v. Rajendar Prasad Rai: CDSA Application for Restraint & Charging Orders over Suspected Criminal Proceeds(May 2017) Rajendar Prasad Rai v Public Prosecutor: Revision of Order for Seizure of Property under Criminal Procedure Code(Mar 2017) Mathew Koottappillil Mathew v Public Prosecutor: Appeal Against Corruption Sentence(Feb 2017)

Case Complexity Analysis

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

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 2.5
Complex Cases: 0 (0%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	13.0 parties avg	3.0	25%
Partial	22.5 parties avg	2.5	50%
Won	12.0 parties avg	2.0	25%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2016	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2017	32.7 parties avg	2.7

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	1(25%)	25%
Partial	2(50%)	50%
Won	1(25%)	25%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	1,500.00	1,500.001 cases	1

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2016	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2017	3 12	Lost: 1 cases (33.3%) Partial: 2 cases (66.7%)

Case History

Displaying all 4 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	PP v. Rajendar Prasad Rai: CDSA Application for Restraint & Charging Orders over Suspected Criminal Proceeds 31 May 2017 Public Prosecutor (Plaintiff, Applicant)Partial	31 May 2017	Public Prosecutor (Plaintiff, Applicant): Orders Granted in PartOrders granted for restraint of specific bank accounts and charging orders on properties.
2	Rajendar Prasad Rai v Public Prosecutor: Revision of Order for Seizure of Property under Criminal Procedure Code 12 Mar 2017 Public Prosecutor (Respondent)Lost	12 Mar 2017	Public Prosecutor (Respondent): Order Set AsideThe Magistrate's Order to extend the seizure of funds was set aside.
3	Mathew Koottappillil Mathew v Public Prosecutor: Appeal Against Corruption Sentence 23 Feb 2017 Public Prosecutor (Respondent)Partial	23 Feb 2017	Public Prosecutor (Respondent): Appeal partially successfulThe original sentence was reduced, but the penalty of $1,500 remained. The currency is assumed to be SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
4	Koh Yong Chiah v Public Prosecutor: False Information to Public Servant & Sentencing Guidelines 17 Nov 2016 Public Prosecutor (Respondent)Won	17 Nov 2016	Public Prosecutor (Respondent): Appeal DismissedThe appeal against the four weeks’ imprisonment term was dismissed.