P E Ashokan

P E Ashokan is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2003 to 2016. The lawyer has handled 13 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 5 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in automobile accidents and personal injury. Their track record shows a 8.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 1 complex case, representing 8% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

P E Ashokan has demonstrated expertise across 49 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and automobile accidents.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	6 cases	7% of total caseload	General Practice43% relevance score	P E Ashokan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 6 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Automobile Accidents	6 cases	7% of total caseload	Highly Specialized79% relevance score	P E Ashokan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 6 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Personal Injury	6 cases	7% of total caseload	Highly Specialized88% relevance score	P E Ashokan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 6 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Negligence	5 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	P E Ashokan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 5 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Contributory negligence	4 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced74% relevance score	P E Ashokan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Torts	3 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized78% relevance score	P E Ashokan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Criminal Law	3 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	P E Ashokan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Causation	3 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	P E Ashokan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Evidence	3 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice37% relevance score	P E Ashokan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	3 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice37% relevance score	P E Ashokan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Damages	3 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	P E Ashokan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	P E Ashokan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Judicial Review	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized82% relevance score	P E Ashokan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	P E Ashokan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Road Traffic Accident Law	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	P E Ashokan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Damages Assessment	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized88% relevance score	P E Ashokan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Road Traffic Act	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	P E Ashokan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Legal Profession Act	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	P E Ashokan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Measure of Damages	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	P E Ashokan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Loss of future earnings	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	P E Ashokan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Assessment of Damages	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	P E Ashokan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Summary Judgement	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	P E Ashokan 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	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	P E Ashokan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Loss of Earning Capacity	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	P E Ashokan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Ex Turpi Causa	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	P E Ashokan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Bribery	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	P E Ashokan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Loss of Amenities	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	P E Ashokan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Fire Damage	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	P E Ashokan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Foreseeability	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	P E Ashokan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	P E Ashokan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Apportioning Liability	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	P E Ashokan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Civil Litigation	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	P E Ashokan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Collections	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	P E Ashokan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Contracts	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	P E Ashokan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Immigration	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	P E Ashokan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	P E Ashokan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Property Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	P E Ashokan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Wrongful Death	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	P E Ashokan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Commercial Disputes	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	P E Ashokan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Fraud and Deceit	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	P E Ashokan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Inducement of Breach of Contract	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	P E Ashokan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Evidence Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	P E Ashokan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Disciplinary Proceedings	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	P E Ashokan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Sentencing	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	P E Ashokan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Criminal Procedure	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	P E Ashokan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Apparent bias	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	P E Ashokan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Costs	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	P E Ashokan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Personal injuries cases	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	P E Ashokan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Medical Negligence	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	P E Ashokan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

P E Ashokan has been affiliated with 5 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 6 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
KhattarWong	6 cases	46% of cases	Chai Kang Wei Samuel v Shaw Linda Gillian: Road Accident, Damages Assessment, Loss of Future Earnings(May 2010) Shaw Linda Gillian v Chai Kang Wei Samuel: Road Accident Damages Assessment(Aug 2009) Ari bin Abdullah v Ong Chwee Siew: Negligence, Contributory Negligence & Admissibility of Criminal Conviction in Civil Proceedings(Jan 2007)
KhattarWong LLP	3 cases	23% of cases	Hewlett-Packard v Chin Shu Hwa: Contractual Ambiguity & Construction Rules(Mar 2016) Manjit Singh v Attorney-General: Judicial Review of Chief Justice's Refusal to Revoke Disciplinary Tribunal Appointment(Aug 2013) ANC Holdings v Bina Puri: Enforceability of Contract Involving Bribery for Saudi Housing Projects(May 2013)
Khattar Wong and Partners	2 cases	15% of cases	Ang Kuang Hoe v Chia Chor Yew: Personal Injury Claim for Damages Following Traffic Accident(Oct 2004) Ang Kuang Hoe v Chia Chor Yew: Negligence & Contributory Negligence in Road Accident(Feb 2004)
Law Society of Singapore	1 cases	8% of cases	Manjit Singh v Attorney-General: Judicial Review of Disciplinary Tribunal Appointment(Mar 2013)
Khattar Wong & Partners	1 cases	8% of cases	B Subramaniam v PP: Harbouring Illegal Immigrant at Checkpoint - Immigration Act(Oct 2003)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of P E Ashokan's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 2.4
Complex Cases: 1 (8%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	62.3 parties avg	2.3	46%
Neutral	13.0 parties avg	3.0	8%
Partial	52.4 parties avg	2.4	38%
Won	13.0 parties avg	3.0	8%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2003	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2004	22.0 parties avg	2.0
2005	32.7 parties avg	2.7
2007	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2009	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2010	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2013	32.8 parties avg	2.8
2016	12.0 parties avg	2.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of P E Ashokan's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	6(46%)	46%
Neutral	1(8%)	8%
Partial	5(38%)	38%
Won	1(8%)	8%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	249,516.25	24,951.6310 cases	10

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2003	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)
2004	2 2	Lost: 2 cases (100.0%)
2005	3 12	Lost: 1 cases (33.3%) Partial: 2 cases (66.7%)
2007	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2009	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)
2010	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)
2013	3 21	Lost: 2 cases (66.7%) Neutral: 1 cases (33.3%)
2016	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 13 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Hewlett-Packard v Chin Shu Hwa: Contractual Ambiguity & Construction Rules 27 Mar 2016 CORINNA CHIN SHU HWA (Respondent, Plaintiff)Lost	27 Mar 2016	CORINNA CHIN SHU HWA (Respondent, Plaintiff): Appeal Dismissed
2	Manjit Singh v Attorney-General: Judicial Review of Chief Justice's Refusal to Revoke Disciplinary Tribunal Appointment 18 Aug 2013 Law Society (Other)Neutral	18 Aug 2013	Law Society (Other): NeutralThe Law Society took a neutral position, representing that the proper course was for the Appellants to make their submissions to the Disciplinary Tribunal for its consideration (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
3	ANC Holdings v Bina Puri: Enforceability of Contract Involving Bribery for Saudi Housing Projects 02 May 2013 ANC Holdings Pte Ltd (Plaintiff)Lost	02 May 2013	ANC Holdings Pte Ltd (Plaintiff): Claim DismissedPlaintiff's claim for commission was dismissed due to the ex turpi causa doctrine.
4	Manjit Singh v Attorney-General: Judicial Review of Disciplinary Tribunal Appointment 14 Mar 2013 Sree Govind Menon (Applicant)Lost	14 Mar 2013	Sree Govind Menon (Applicant): Application dismissed with costsApplication for judicial review dismissed; applicants ordered to pay $5,000 towards the Attorney-General's costs (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
5	Chai Kang Wei Samuel v Shaw Linda Gillian: Road Accident, Damages Assessment, Loss of Future Earnings 26 May 2010 Shaw Linda Gillian (Respondent)Partial	26 May 2010	Shaw Linda Gillian (Respondent): Appeal partially successfulAppeal partially successful as the court restored the AR’s awards for loss of earning capacity and for pain and suffering arising from the head injuries. No monetary amount specified.
6	Shaw Linda Gillian v Chai Kang Wei Samuel: Road Accident Damages Assessment 18 Aug 2009 Shaw Linda Gillian (Plaintiff, Appellant)Partial	18 Aug 2009	Shaw Linda Gillian (Plaintiff, Appellant): Appeal allowed in partDamages awarded for pain, suffering and loss of amenities. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
7	Ari bin Abdullah v Ong Chwee Siew: Negligence, Contributory Negligence & Admissibility of Criminal Conviction in Civil Proceedings 28 Jan 2007 Farida bte Umar (administratrix of the estate of Mohd Hussin bin Ismail, deceased) (Plaintiff, Third Party)Won	28 Jan 2007	Farida bte Umar (administratrix of the estate of Mohd Hussin bin Ismail, deceased) (Plaintiff, Third Party): Judgment for PlaintiffFarida’s claim for damages with respect to Hussin’s death succeeds with costs; damages to be assessed by the Registrar (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
8	Saatchi & Saatchi v Tan Hun Ling: Negligence, Fire Damage, and Landlord Liability 14 Dec 2005 Clarke Quay Pte Ltd (Third Party)Partial	14 Dec 2005	Clarke Quay Pte Ltd (Third Party): Partial IndemnificationThe third party is to indemnify the defendant to the extent of the third party’s share of the damages assessed at 50% and pay the defendant’s costs of defending the plaintiff’s action and third party proceedings. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
9	Koh Swee Hoon v Yeo Hee Chong: Negligence and Contributory Negligence in Road Accident on Tampines Expressway 04 Oct 2005 Yeo Hee Chong (Defendant)Lost	04 Oct 2005	Yeo Hee Chong (Defendant): Judgment Against DefendantJudgment against the defendant; damages to be assessed by the registrar, with the plaintiff's award reduced by 40% due to contributory negligence. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
10	Mei Yue Lan Margaret v Raffles City: Assessment of Damages for Leg Injury and Loss of Amenities 13 Sep 2005 Raffles City (Pte) Ltd (Defendant, Respondent)Partial	13 Sep 2005	Raffles City (Pte) Ltd (Defendant, Respondent): Appeal allowed in partThe assistant registrar’s award of $90,405 for this item is therefore reduced by $38,745. (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore)
11	Ang Kuang Hoe v Chia Chor Yew: Personal Injury Claim for Damages Following Traffic Accident 12 Oct 2004 Chia Chor Yew (Defendant)Lost	12 Oct 2004	Chia Chor Yew (Defendant): Judgment against DefendantJudgment against the defendant for 50% of the assessed damages, totaling $78,261.25 and RM 75. The currency is assumed to be SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
12	Ang Kuang Hoe v Chia Chor Yew: Negligence & Contributory Negligence in Road Accident 17 Feb 2004 Chia Chor Yew (Defendant)Lost	17 Feb 2004	Chia Chor Yew (Defendant): Judgment against DefendantLiable for 50% of the damages assessed (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
13	B Subramaniam v PP: Harbouring Illegal Immigrant at Checkpoint - Immigration Act 20 Oct 2003 B Subramaniam a/l Banget Raman (Appellant)Partial	20 Oct 2003	B Subramaniam a/l Banget Raman (Appellant): Appeal against conviction dismissed, sentence reducedAppeal against conviction dismissed. Sentence reduced from one year to six months' imprisonment. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.