P Padman

P Padman is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2002 to 2023. The lawyer has handled 23 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 7 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in legal profession act and disciplinary proceedings. Their track record shows a 39.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 8 complex cases, representing 35% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

P Padman has demonstrated expertise across 80 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and arbitration.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	14 cases	10% of total caseload	Experienced53% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 14 cases which represents 10% of their total caseload.
Arbitration	6 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice49% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 6 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	6 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice43% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 6 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Misrepresentation	5 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced52% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 5 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Company Law	5 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced68% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 5 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Legal Profession Act	5 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized91% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 5 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	5 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 5 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Commercial Disputes	4 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice36% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 4 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Disciplinary Proceedings	4 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized93% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Evidence Law	3 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice38% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Criminal Law	3 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice23% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Fraud and Deceit	3 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Minority Oppression	3 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Corporate Law	2 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice15% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Conspiracy by Unlawful Means	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Clean Hands Doctrine	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized83% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Debt Recovery	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced63% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Damages	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced63% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Evidence	2 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
International Arbitration	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Limitation	2 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Property Law	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced57% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Injunctions	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Professional Ethics	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced73% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Stay of Proceedings	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Estoppel	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Judgments and Orders	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	P Padman 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	Experienced60% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Psychiatry	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Medical Negligence	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Setting Aside Arbitral Award	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Professional Misconduct	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Taxation of Legal Fees	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Interpretation of contractual terms	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Conflict of Laws	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Valuation of Shares	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
UNCITRAL Model Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Ultra vires	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
False Imprisonment	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Quasi-partnership	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Professional Conduct Rules	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Jurisdiction of Arbitral tribunal	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Loans	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Motor accident	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Defective Title	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Vacant Possession	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Building Regulations	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Scheme of Arrangement	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Joint Venture Agreement	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Traditional Chinese Medicine Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Construction Works	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Pricing Mechanism	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Share Investment	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	P Padman 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	Experienced70% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Solicitor-client privilege	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Appellate Practice	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Assault	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Asset Recovery	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Automobile Accidents	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Banking and Finance	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Bankruptcy	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Conveyancing	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Legal Malpractice	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	P Padman 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	Experienced70% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Personal Injury	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Professional Liability	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Torts	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	P Padman 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 Practice10% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Winding Up	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Inducement of Breach of Contract	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Measure of Damages	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Recourse against award	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Natural justice	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Director's Liability	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
International Arbitration Act	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	P Padman has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Frustration	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	P Padman 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	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	P Padman 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

P Padman has been affiliated with 7 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 11 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
KSCGP Juris LLP	11 cases	48% of cases	Raffles Education v. Prakash: Conspiracy, Misrepresentation & Breach of Contract. Education Sector Dispute.(Apr 2023) Ang Xing Yao Lionel v Lew Mun Hung Joseph: Minority Shareholder Oppression in Quasi-Partnership Dispute(Nov 2022) Law Society v Lee Wei Ling: Power of Council in Disciplinary Procedures(Mar 2022)
K S Chia Gurdeep & Param	3 cases	13% of cases	Yip Kok Seng v Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Board: Ultra Vires & Jurisdiction in TCM Complaint Investigation(Aug 2010) Econ Piling v GTE Construction: Dispute over Retention Sum and Joint Venture Agreement(Sep 2009) Ho Cheng Lay v Low Yong Sen: Taxation of Solicitor's Bill of Costs After Payment(Mar 2009)
Tan Kok Quan Partnership	3 cases	13% of cases	Prabhu v Kooi: Defective Title, Vacant Possession & Unauthorised Structures(Oct 2015) PSONS Ltd v UPF Holding Pte Ltd: Application to Appeal Mareva Injunction Decision(May 2014) PSONS Ltd v UPF Holding Pte Ltd: Setting Aside Mareva Injunction for Lack of Clean Hands(Mar 2014)
Tito Isaac & Co	2 cases	9% of cases	Dixon v Scanlon: Share Valuation Dispute & Interpretation of Court Orders(Mar 2007) Hoban Steven Maurice Dixon v Scanlon Graeme John: Valuation of Minority Shares in Oppression Claim(Jul 2006)
Tito Issac and Co	2 cases	9% of cases	United Overseas Bank v Ng Huat Foundations: Stay of Winding-Up Proceedings and Scheme of Arrangement under Companies Act(Mar 2005) Mohan Singh v Shran Jeet Singh: Loan Dispute Over Shares Purchase(Dec 2004)
KS Chia Gurdeep & Param	1 cases	4% of cases	Foo Ko Hing v Foo Chee Heng: Interrogatories, Solicitor-Client Privilege & Relevance in Share Purchase Dispute(Apr 2002)
Tito Isaac & Co LLP	1 cases	4% of cases	Amutha Valli v Redemptorist Fathers: Tort Claims for Assault, False Imprisonment & Negligence in Alleged Exorcism(Feb 2009)

Case Complexity Analysis

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

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 3.9
Complex Cases: 8 (35%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	103.0 parties avg	3.0	43%
Neutral	13.0 parties avg	3.0	4%
Partial	32.8 parties avg	2.8	13%
Won	94.8 parties avg	4.8	39%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2002	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2004	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2005	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2006	15.0 parties avg	5.0
2007	15.0 parties avg	5.0
2009	36.0 parties avg	6.0
2010	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2014	23.5 parties avg	3.5
2015	14.0 parties avg	4.0
2017	22.0 parties avg	2.0
2018	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2020	23.7 parties avg	3.7
2021	32.3 parties avg	2.3
2022	24.5 parties avg	4.5
2023	15.0 parties avg	5.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	10(43%)	43%
Neutral	1(4%)	4%
Partial	3(13%)	13%
Won	9(39%)	39%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	1,501,205.94	107,229.0014 cases	14

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2002	1 1	Neutral: 1 cases (100.0%)
2004	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2005	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2006	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2007	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2009	3 21	Lost: 2 cases (66.7%) Won: 1 cases (33.3%)
2010	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2014	2 2	Won: 2 cases (100.0%)
2015	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2017	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Partial: 1 cases (50.0%)
2018	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2020	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Partial: 1 cases (50.0%)
2021	3 111	Lost: 1 cases (33.3%) Partial: 1 cases (33.3%) Won: 1 cases (33.3%)
2022	2 2	Won: 2 cases (100.0%)
2023	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 23 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Raffles Education v. Prakash: Conspiracy, Misrepresentation & Breach of Contract. Education Sector Dispute. 05 Apr 2023 Lui Yew Lee Dennis Paul (Defendant)Lost	05 Apr 2023	Lui Yew Lee Dennis Paul (Defendant): Judgment against Defendant in partJudgment against Defendant in part.
2	Ang Xing Yao Lionel v Lew Mun Hung Joseph: Minority Shareholder Oppression in Quasi-Partnership Dispute 01 Nov 2022 Red Dot Robotics Pte Ltd (Defendant)Won	01 Nov 2022	Red Dot Robotics Pte Ltd (Defendant): Judgment for DefendantJudgment in favor of the defendant.
3	Law Society v Lee Wei Ling: Power of Council in Disciplinary Procedures 13 Mar 2022 Law Society of Singapore (Appellant)Won	13 Mar 2022	Law Society of Singapore (Appellant): Appeal AllowedThe Law Society's appeal was allowed, affirming the Council's determination to dismiss the First Complaint.
4	Iskandar v Law Society: Appeal on Disciplinary Proceedings for Defense Team in Double Murder Case 18 Nov 2021 Law Society of Singapore (Respondent)Won	18 Nov 2021	Law Society of Singapore (Respondent): Appeal DismissedThe Law Society of Singapore successfully defended the appeal against the dismissal of the complaint.
5	Lee Wei Ling v Law Society: Disciplinary Procedures & Professional Conduct 20 Apr 2021 Law Society of Singapore (Defendant)Partial	20 Apr 2021	Law Society of Singapore (Defendant): Application granted in partOrder directing the Law Society to apply to the Chief Justice for the appointment of a Disciplinary Tribunal in relation to the First and Fourth Complaints.
6	Iskandar v Law Society: Appealability of Judge's Decision on Disciplinary Review under Legal Profession Act 07 Jan 2021 Law Society of Singapore (Respondent)Lost	07 Jan 2021	Law Society of Singapore (Respondent): Application dismissedThe Law Society's application to strike out the appeal was dismissed.
7	Raffles Education v. Prakash: Forum Non Conveniens, Conspiracy, Misrepresentation 26 Apr 2020 Lui Yew Lee Dennis Paul (Defendant)Lost	26 Apr 2020	Lui Yew Lee Dennis Paul (Defendant): Stay application dismissedDefendant's stay application dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
8	Loh Chiang Tien v Saman Dharmatilleke: Breach of Contract, Frustration, and Action in Debt Dispute 27 Feb 2020 Loh Yong Lim (Plaintiff)Partial	27 Feb 2020	Loh Yong Lim (Plaintiff): Share Agreement Claim and Exhibition Claim Dismissed; Repayment Claim AllowedShare Agreement Claim and Exhibition Claim dismissed; Judgment for the plaintiff on the Repayment Claim for $10,000 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
9	Sinolanka Hotels v Interna Contract: Dispute over Arbitral Tribunal Jurisdiction 05 Jul 2018 Interna Contract SpA (Defendant)Won	05 Jul 2018	Interna Contract SpA (Defendant): Application dismissedDefendant was awarded costs of S$15,000. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
10	Zynergy Solar v Phoenix Solar: Setting Aside Arbitral Award for Breach of Natural Justice 12 Sep 2017 ZYNERGY SOLAR PROJECTS & SERVICES PVT LTD (Plaintiff)Lost	12 Sep 2017	ZYNERGY SOLAR PROJECTS & SERVICES PVT LTD (Plaintiff): Application DismissedApplication to set aside the arbitral award was dismissed with costs fixed at $6,000 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
11	Quek Yen Fei Kenneth v Yeo Chye Huat: Damages for Personal Injuries Following Motor Accident 23 Apr 2017 Quek Yen Fei Kenneth (Appellant, Respondent, Plaintiff)Partial	23 Apr 2017	Quek Yen Fei Kenneth (Appellant, Respondent, Plaintiff): Appeal allowed in partTotal award increased from $452,509.41 to $471,823.94 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
12	Prabhu v Kooi: Defective Title, Vacant Possession & Unauthorised Structures 26 Oct 2015 Goh Seok Tor (Defendant)Lost	26 Oct 2015	Goh Seok Tor (Defendant): Judgment against Defendant in partDamages awarded for breach of warranty and alternative accommodation costs (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
13	PSONS Ltd v UPF Holding Pte Ltd: Application to Appeal Mareva Injunction Decision 05 May 2014 UPF Holding Pte Ltd (Defendant, Respondent)Won	05 May 2014	UPF Holding Pte Ltd (Defendant, Respondent): Mareva injunction set asideThe defendant's application to set aside the Mareva injunction was allowed.
14	PSONS Ltd v UPF Holding Pte Ltd: Setting Aside Mareva Injunction for Lack of Clean Hands 30 Mar 2014 Third defendant (Defendant)Won	30 Mar 2014	Third defendant (Defendant): Application AllowedThe defendant's application to set aside the Mareva injunction was allowed. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
15	Yip Kok Seng v Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Board: Ultra Vires & Jurisdiction in TCM Complaint Investigation 05 Aug 2010 Yip Kok Seng (Plaintiff)Lost	05 Aug 2010	Yip Kok Seng (Plaintiff): Application DismissedApplication dismissed. Each party was to bear his/its own costs of the application. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
16	Econ Piling v GTE Construction: Dispute over Retention Sum and Joint Venture Agreement 22 Sep 2009 GTE Construction Pte Ltd (Defendant)Lost	22 Sep 2009	GTE Construction Pte Ltd (Defendant): Counterclaim DismissedDefendant's counterclaim is dismissed and GTE shall pay Econ the costs of the action and of defending the counterclaim as taxed or agreed. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
17	Ho Cheng Lay v Low Yong Sen: Taxation of Solicitor's Bill of Costs After Payment 08 Mar 2009 Low Yong Sen (Defendant)Lost	08 Mar 2009	Low Yong Sen (Defendant): Application dismissedThe defendant's arguments against the taxation of his bills of costs were dismissed.
18	Amutha Valli v Redemptorist Fathers: Tort Claims for Assault, False Imprisonment & Negligence in Alleged Exorcism 12 Feb 2009 Simon Tan Hon Lip (Defendant)Won	12 Feb 2009	Simon Tan Hon Lip (Defendant): Judgment for DefendantThe plaintiff's claim against the second defendant was dismissed.
19	Dixon v Scanlon: Share Valuation Dispute & Interpretation of Court Orders 20 Mar 2007 Bulkpak Pte Ltd (Respondent)Won	20 Mar 2007	Bulkpak Pte Ltd (Respondent): Appeal DismissedThe appeal against the trial judge’s decision was dismissed.
20	Hoban Steven Maurice Dixon v Scanlon Graeme John: Valuation of Minority Shares in Oppression Claim 30 Jul 2006 Bulpak Pte Ltd (Defendant)Won	30 Jul 2006	Bulpak Pte Ltd (Defendant): Costs of the resumed hearing awarded to the defendantsThe defendants were awarded the costs of the resumed hearing. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
21	United Overseas Bank v Ng Huat Foundations: Stay of Winding-Up Proceedings and Scheme of Arrangement under Companies Act 09 Mar 2005 Ng Huat Foundations Pte Ltd (Respondent)Lost	09 Mar 2005	Ng Huat Foundations Pte Ltd (Respondent): Application for stay dismissedThe respondent's application for a stay of the petition for winding up was dismissed.
22	Mohan Singh v Shran Jeet Singh: Loan Dispute Over Shares Purchase 09 Dec 2004 Shran Jeet Singh (Defendant)Lost	09 Dec 2004	Shran Jeet Singh (Defendant): Claim DismissedDefendant ordered to repay $459,550 with interest at 6% per annum from 16 June 2001 (two months from the demand date). Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
23	Foo Ko Hing v Foo Chee Heng: Interrogatories, Solicitor-Client Privilege & Relevance in Share Purchase Dispute 10 Apr 2002 Rey Foo Jong Han (Other)Neutral	10 Apr 2002	Rey Foo Jong Han (Other): NeutralThe Plaintiff would pay Rey Foo costs on an indemnity basis, such costs to be agreed between themselves, and that such costs and the costs of the application and of the appeal be costs in the cause. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.