Oh Kim Heoh Mimi

Oh Kim Heoh Mimi is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2013 to 2023. The lawyer has handled 7 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 2 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in construction law and matrimonial assets. Their track record shows a 43.0% success rate in resolved cases.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Oh Kim Heoh Mimi has demonstrated expertise across 46 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and breach of contract.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	6 cases	9% of total caseload	General Practice48% relevance score	Oh Kim Heoh Mimi has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 6 cases which represents 9% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	4 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced58% relevance score	Oh Kim Heoh Mimi has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	3 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Oh Kim Heoh Mimi has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Construction Law	3 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized82% relevance score	Oh Kim Heoh Mimi has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Matrimonial Assets	3 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Oh Kim Heoh Mimi has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Family Law	3 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized97% relevance score	Oh Kim Heoh Mimi has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Damages	2 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Oh Kim Heoh Mimi has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004	2 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced58% relevance score	Oh Kim Heoh Mimi has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Appeal	2 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice33% relevance score	Oh Kim Heoh Mimi has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Maintenance	2 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Oh Kim Heoh Mimi has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Estoppel	2 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Oh Kim Heoh Mimi has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Measure of Damages	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Oh Kim Heoh Mimi has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Maintenance (Child)	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Oh Kim Heoh Mimi has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Contractual terms	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Oh Kim Heoh Mimi has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Costs	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Oh Kim Heoh Mimi has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Pre-judgment interest	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Oh Kim Heoh Mimi has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Defamation	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Oh Kim Heoh Mimi has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Debt Recovery	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice35% relevance score	Oh Kim Heoh Mimi has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Evidence	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Oh Kim Heoh Mimi has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Summary Judgement	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Oh Kim Heoh Mimi has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Division of Assets	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Oh Kim Heoh Mimi has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Performance of Contract	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Oh Kim Heoh Mimi has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Interest	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Oh Kim Heoh Mimi has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Contractors’ duties	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Oh Kim Heoh Mimi has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Caveats	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Oh Kim Heoh Mimi has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Unpaid Vendor's Lien	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Oh Kim Heoh Mimi has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Subcontracts	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Oh Kim Heoh Mimi has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Claims	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Oh Kim Heoh Mimi has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Defects	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Oh Kim Heoh Mimi has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Defect liability provisions	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Oh Kim Heoh Mimi has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Repudiation of contract	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Oh Kim Heoh Mimi has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Wrongful Termination of Contract	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Oh Kim Heoh Mimi has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Progress Payment Claims	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Oh Kim Heoh Mimi has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Signage Works	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Oh Kim Heoh Mimi has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Hot-Dip Galvanisation	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Oh Kim Heoh Mimi has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Statement of Final Account	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	Oh Kim Heoh Mimi has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Building and Construction Contracts	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Oh Kim Heoh Mimi has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Cerebral Palsy	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice5% relevance score	Oh Kim Heoh Mimi has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Child Custody	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Oh Kim Heoh Mimi has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Construction Litigation	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Oh Kim Heoh Mimi has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Land Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Oh Kim Heoh Mimi has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Negligence	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Oh Kim Heoh Mimi 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 Practice10% relevance score	Oh Kim Heoh Mimi has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Powers of Attorney	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Oh Kim Heoh Mimi 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	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Oh Kim Heoh Mimi has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Wills and Probate	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice5% relevance score	Oh Kim Heoh Mimi has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Oh Kim Heoh Mimi has been affiliated with 2 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 6 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Ethos Law Corporation	6 cases	86% of cases	Pandey v Bothra: Caveat Dispute over Unpaid Property Purchase Price under Land Titles Act(May 2023) Calpeda Asia Pacific v Chew Construction: Subcontract Claims, Defect Damages, Delay, and Contractor Duties(Apr 2023) LBE Engineering v Double S Construction: Wrongful Termination in Construction Dispute(Apr 2022)
RHTLaw Taylor Wessing LLP	1 cases	14% of cases	Longyuan-Arrk v Show and Tell: Breach of Contract, Defamation, and Signage Installation Dispute(Aug 2013)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Oh Kim Heoh Mimi's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 2.0
Complex Cases: 0 (0%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	32.0 parties avg	2.0	43%
Partial	12.0 parties avg	2.0	14%
Won	32.0 parties avg	2.0	43%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2013	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2020	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2021	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2022	22.0 parties avg	2.0
2023	22.0 parties avg	2.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Oh Kim Heoh Mimi's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	3(43%)	43%
Partial	1(14%)	14%
Won	3(43%)	43%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	1,403,285.47	233,880.916 cases	6

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2013	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2020	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)
2021	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2022	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2023	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 7 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Pandey v Bothra: Caveat Dispute over Unpaid Property Purchase Price under Land Titles Act 03 May 2023 Divya Bothra (Defendant)Lost	03 May 2023	Divya Bothra (Defendant): Application Partially UnsuccessfulDefendant to pay costs of $10,000 to the claimant. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
2	Calpeda Asia Pacific v Chew Construction: Subcontract Claims, Defect Damages, Delay, and Contractor Duties 17 Apr 2023 Calpeda Asia Pacific Pte Ltd (Plaintiff, Defendant in Counterclaim)Won	17 Apr 2023	Calpeda Asia Pacific Pte Ltd (Plaintiff, Defendant in Counterclaim): Judgment for PlaintiffJudgment for the Plaintiff in the amount of $683,147.92 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
3	LBE Engineering v Double S Construction: Wrongful Termination in Construction Dispute 25 Apr 2022 LBE Engineering Pte Ltd (Appellant, Defendant)Won	25 Apr 2022	LBE Engineering Pte Ltd (Appellant, Defendant): Counterclaim AllowedDefendant's counterclaim is allowed, and there shall be judgment for the defendant in the sum of $52,632 including interest at 5.33% from the date of the counterclaim. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
4	WAS v WAT: Division of Matrimonial Assets in Divorce after 11-Year Marriage 01 Mar 2022 WAS (Plaintiff)Lost	01 Mar 2022	WAS (Plaintiff): Share of matrimonial assets orderedHusband received 35% of the total matrimonial assets, amounting to $551,939 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
5	VJP v VJQ: Division of Matrimonial Assets After Exclusion on Appeal 11 Aug 2021 VJQ (Respondent)Lost	11 Aug 2021	VJQ (Respondent): Appeal DismissedThe husband's share of the matrimonial pool was reduced, and he was ordered to pay the wife an additional $52,665.73.
6	VJQ v VJP: Division of Matrimonial Assets and Child Maintenance Dispute 28 Sep 2020 VJQ (Appellant, Respondent)Partial	28 Sep 2020	VJQ (Appellant, Respondent): Appeal allowed in partThe sum of $140,000 being the purchase price of the Primefield shares was excluded from the matrimonial assets. The sum of $176,250 being the sum of the undisbursed housing loan for the Botanique apartment was excluded from the matrimonial assets, with liberty to apply in the event that the loan is not disbursed. The children’s monthly maintenance is payable on the 3rd instead of the 23rd of each month.
7	Longyuan-Arrk v Show and Tell: Breach of Contract, Defamation, and Signage Installation Dispute 21 Aug 2013 Show and Tell Productions Pte Ltd (Defendant, Plaintiff)Won	21 Aug 2013	Show and Tell Productions Pte Ltd (Defendant, Plaintiff): Judgment for DefendantJudgment for the Defendant in the amount of $105,566.55 with interest thereon at the rate of 5.33% per annum from the date of the Plaintiff’s writ of summons in Suit 81 to the date of payment. (Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).