Peter Low

Peter Low is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2001 to 2019. The lawyer has handled 16 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 7 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in contempt of court and parliamentary elections. Their track record shows a 12.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 5 complex cases, representing 31% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Peter Low has demonstrated expertise across 65 primary practice areas, with significant experience in civil procedure and company law.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Civil Procedure	7 cases	7% of total caseload	General Practice46% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 7 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Company Law	5 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced52% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 5 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	5 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice48% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 5 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Estoppel	4 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice31% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 4 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	4 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced53% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Corporate Law	4 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice25% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 4 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Constitutional Law	4 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Contempt of Court	3 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized83% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Partnership Law	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced73% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Criminal Procedure	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Commercial Disputes	2 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice38% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Trust Law	2 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice23% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Property Law	2 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Parliamentary Elections	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Duty to Account	2 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Criminal Law	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Costs	2 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Evidence Law	2 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Misrepresentation	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Peter Low 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 Practice40% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Breach of Confidence	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Maintenance	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Jurisdiction	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Sentencing	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Misuse of Drugs Act	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Admissibility of evidence	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Illegality and public policy	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Abuse of Process	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Director's Duties	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Limitation	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Breach of Trust	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Restraint of Trade	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Judicial Review	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Shares	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Evidence	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Succession Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Matrimonial Assets	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin 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	Peter Low has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Accounting	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Professional Ethics	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Financial contribution	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Unincorporated Associations	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Freedom of speech	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Strata Management	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Scandalising the court	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Vacation of Seat	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Corporate Governance Disputes	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Lump Sum Maintenance	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Peter Low 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	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Business Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Chancery and Equity	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Civil Litigation	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Contracts	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Corporate Governance	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Corporate Litigation	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Divorce	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Employment Contracts	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Employment Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Family Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Peter Low 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 Practice20% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Fiduciary Duties	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Estate Administration	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Peter Low has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Minority Oppression	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Peter Low 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

Peter Low has been affiliated with 7 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 6 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Peter Low LLC	6 cases	38% of cases	Tan Boon Hai v Tan Kia Kok: Dispute Over Clan Association Membership and Election Validity(Oct 2016) Higgins v Mulacek: Breach of Contract & Fiduciary Duty in Aircraft Management(Sep 2016) Au Wai Pang v Attorney-General: Scandalising the Court & Freedom of Speech(Nov 2015)
Peter Low Tang & Belinda Ang	4 cases	25% of cases	Sum Lye Heng v Management Corporation: Abuse of Process & Strata Titles Act(Oct 2003) Ng Ngah Len v Kuah Tian Nam: Appeal on Division of Matrimonial Assets and Maintenance(May 2003) Toh Kim Chan v Toh Kim Tian: Partnership Accounting, Share Ownership, and Limitation Act Dispute(Nov 2002)
Peter Low & Choo LLC	2 cases	13% of cases	Wong Souk Yee v Attorney-General: By-Elections for Group Representation Constituencies and Constitutional Interpretation(Apr 2019) Wong Souk Yee v Attorney-General: Judicial Review of By-Election Non-Requirement in Group Representation Constituency(Apr 2018)
Colin Ng & Partners LLP	1 cases	6% of cases	Ng Chee Weng v Lim Jit Ming Bryan: Striking Out 'Without Prejudice' Communications in Trust Dispute(Jan 2010)
Independent Practitioner	1 cases	6% of cases	Chow Kwok Ching v Chow Kwok Chi: Oppression, Family Business, and Companies Act(Jun 2008)
Peter Low Partnership	1 cases	6% of cases	SeaCAD Technologies v Tan Siew Meng Aaron: Misappropriation of Confidential Info & Breach of Non-Competition Clause(Nov 2007)
Peter Low Tang and Belinda Ang	1 cases	6% of cases	Toh Kim Chan v Toh Kim Tian: Partnership Accounts Dispute & Asset Transfer(Aug 2004)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Peter Low's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 3.4
Complex Cases: 5 (31%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	113.5 parties avg	3.5	69%
Partial	43.5 parties avg	3.5	25%
Won	22.5 parties avg	2.5	13%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2001	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2002	14.0 parties avg	4.0
2003	25.5 parties avg	5.5
2004	14.0 parties avg	4.0
2007	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2008	14.0 parties avg	4.0
2010	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2014	22.0 parties avg	2.0
2015	22.0 parties avg	2.0
2016	25.5 parties avg	5.5
2018	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2019	12.0 parties avg	2.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	11(65%)	65%
Partial	4(24%)	24%
Won	2(12%)	12%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	28,986,351.61	3,623,293.958 cases	8

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2001	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2002	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)
2003	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Partial: 1 cases (50.0%)
2004	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)
2007	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2008	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)
2010	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2014	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2015	2 2	Lost: 2 cases (100.0%)
2016	2 2	Lost: 2 cases (100.0%)
2018	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2019	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 16 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Wong Souk Yee v Attorney-General: By-Elections for Group Representation Constituencies and Constitutional Interpretation 09 Apr 2019 Wong Souk Yee (Appellant, Applicant)Lost	09 Apr 2019	Wong Souk Yee (Appellant, Applicant): Appeal Dismissed in partAppeal dismissed, save on the issue of leave, and save that the Judge’s order as to the costs of the proceedings below and make no order as to the costs of the appeal.
2	Wong Souk Yee v Attorney-General: Judicial Review of By-Election Non-Requirement in Group Representation Constituency 08 Apr 2018 Wong Souk Yee (Applicant)Lost	08 Apr 2018	Wong Souk Yee (Applicant): Application dismissed.Application dismissed; costs to be paid by the Applicant to the Respondent fixed at $10,764.35 inclusive of disbursements (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
3	Tan Boon Hai v Tan Kia Kok: Dispute Over Clan Association Membership and Election Validity 27 Oct 2016 Tan Boon Hai (Plaintiff)Lost	27 Oct 2016	Tan Boon Hai (Plaintiff): Claims DismissedPlaintiff's prayers in OS 156 and SUM 740 were dismissed. Plaintiff ordered to pay the Clan costs of $15,000 and reasonable disbursements. (Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
4	Higgins v Mulacek: Breach of Contract & Fiduciary Duty in Aircraft Management 25 Sep 2016 Danial Patrick Higgins (Plaintiff, Defendant by counterclaim)Lost	25 Sep 2016	Danial Patrick Higgins (Plaintiff, Defendant by counterclaim): Claim DismissedClaim for breach of contract dismissed.
5	Au Wai Pang v Attorney-General: Scandalising the Court & Freedom of Speech 29 Nov 2015 Au Wai Pang (Appellant)Lost	29 Nov 2015	Au Wai Pang (Appellant): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed with costs. The appellant was originally fined $8,000 in the High Court. The currency is assumed to be SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
6	Attorney-General v Au Wai Pang: Scandalising Contempt and Freedom of Speech 20 Jan 2015 Au Wai Pang (Respondent)Lost	20 Jan 2015	Au Wai Pang (Respondent): Guilty of scandalising contempt in respect of the First ArticleThe Respondent was found guilty of scandalising contempt in respect of the First Article.
7	Au Wai Pang v Attorney-General: Contempt of Court & Court of Appeal Jurisdiction 29 Apr 2014 Au Wai Pang (Respondent)Won	29 Apr 2014	Au Wai Pang (Respondent): Application AllowedThe application by the Attorney-General for leave to commence committal proceedings against Au Wai Pang was dismissed. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
8	Tan Kim Hock Anthony v Public Prosecutor: Criminal Breach of Trust Appeal 20 Feb 2014 Tan Kim Hock Anthony (Appellant, Respondent)Lost	20 Feb 2014	Tan Kim Hock Anthony (Appellant, Respondent): Appeal dismissedAppeal against conviction and sentence dismissed.
9	Ng Chee Weng v Lim Jit Ming Bryan: Striking Out 'Without Prejudice' Communications in Trust Dispute 28 Jan 2010 Ng Chee Weng (Plaintiff)Lost	28 Jan 2010	Ng Chee Weng (Plaintiff): Paragraphs in Statement of Claim and affidavit struck outParagraphs in the Statement of Claim and supporting affidavit were struck out due to disclosing 'without prejudice' communications.
10	Chow Kwok Ching v Chow Kwok Chi: Oppression, Family Business, and Companies Act 25 Jun 2008 Chow Kwok Ching (Plaintiff)Partial	25 Jun 2008	Chow Kwok Ching (Plaintiff): Partial VictoryPlaintiff succeeded in his case, but was only entitled to recover 65% of his costs from the first and second defendants. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
11	SeaCAD Technologies v Tan Siew Meng Aaron: Misappropriation of Confidential Info & Breach of Non-Competition Clause 08 Nov 2007 Engineering Computer Services (S) Pte Ltd (Defendant)Won	08 Nov 2007	Engineering Computer Services (S) Pte Ltd (Defendant): Claim DismissedClaim for misappropriation of confidential information dismissed. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
12	Toh Kim Chan v Toh Kim Tian: Partnership Accounts Dispute & Asset Transfer 01 Aug 2004 Toh Kim Chan (Respondent, Plaintiff)Partial	01 Aug 2004	Toh Kim Chan (Respondent, Plaintiff): Appeal allowed in partThe court initially ordered the first defendant to pay the plaintiff 20% of $362,936.28, amounting to $72,587.26. This amount was later reduced on appeal. Currency assumed to be SGD, the currency of Singapore.
13	Sum Lye Heng v Management Corporation: Abuse of Process & Strata Titles Act 19 Oct 2003 Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2285 (Defendant)Lost	19 Oct 2003	Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2285 (Defendant): Application DismissedThe application to prosecute or proceed with further action in Private Summons No 138 of 2003 was dismissed.
14	Ng Ngah Len v Kuah Tian Nam: Appeal on Division of Matrimonial Assets and Maintenance 08 May 2003 Ng Ngah Len @ Datin Sandra Kuah (Appellant)Partial	08 May 2003	Ng Ngah Len @ Datin Sandra Kuah (Appellant): Appeal Allowed in PartLump sum maintenance increased to $3,888,000 and share in matrimonial assets increased to $25 million (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
15	Toh Kim Chan v Toh Kim Tian: Partnership Accounting, Share Ownership, and Limitation Act Dispute 10 Nov 2002 Toh Kim Chan (Plaintiff)Partial	10 Nov 2002	Toh Kim Chan (Plaintiff): Judgment for Plaintiff in partAccounting of partnership assets ordered; Defendant to transfer 20% of company shares to Plaintiff.
16	Public Prosecutor v Aw Kim Lye: Trafficking of Diamorphine under the Misuse of Drugs Act 10 Oct 2001 Aw Kim Lye (Defendant)Lost	10 Oct 2001	Aw Kim Lye (Defendant): Sentenced to deathThe accused was convicted and sentenced to death.