Peter Pang

Peter Pang is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2001 to 2010. The lawyer has handled 5 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 2 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in landlord and tenant law and divorce. Their track record shows a 20.0% success rate in resolved cases.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Peter Pang has demonstrated expertise across 29 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and civil procedure.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	4 cases	11% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Peter Pang has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	2 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	Peter Pang has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Landlord and Tenant Law	2 cases	6% of total caseload	Highly Specialized88% relevance score	Peter Pang has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Estoppel	2 cases	6% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Peter Pang has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Divorce	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Peter Pang has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Family Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Peter Pang has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Summary Judgment	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Peter Pang has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Trusts and Estates	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Peter Pang has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Insolvency Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Peter Pang has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Abuse of Process	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Peter Pang has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Revenue Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Peter Pang has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Judicial Review	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Peter Pang has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Evidence	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Peter Pang has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Company Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Peter Pang has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Matrimonial Assets	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Peter Pang has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Division of Matrimonial Property	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Peter Pang has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Agreements for leases	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Peter Pang has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Matrimonial Proceedings	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Peter Pang has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Equity	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Peter Pang has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Muslim Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Peter Pang has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Women’s Charter	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Peter Pang has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Guardianship of Infants Act	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Peter Pang has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Mistake of Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Peter Pang has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Hiring Charges	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Peter Pang has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Peter Pang has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Illegal Contracts	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Peter Pang has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Bankruptcy	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Peter Pang has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Peter Pang has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Credit and Security	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Peter Pang has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Peter Pang has been affiliated with 2 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 3 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Peter Pang and Co	3 cases	60% of cases	Pacrim Investments v Tan Mui Keow Claire: Company Secretary's Power & Share Transfer Moratorium(Oct 2004) Top Ten Entertainment v Lucky Red: Illegal Contracts & Rent Apportionment Dispute(Sep 2004) Top Ten Entertainment v Lucky Red: Rent Reduction & Legality of Hiring Charges(Feb 2004)
Peter Pang & Co	2 cases	40% of cases	Mohamed Yusoff v Umi Kalsom: Judicial Review of Syariah Court's Matrimonial Property Division(Apr 2010) Tunas (Pte) Ltd v Ng Man-Leong: Appeal on Striking Out Statement of Claim for Relitigating Prior Actions(Jan 2001)

Case Complexity Analysis

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

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 2.4
Complex Cases: 0 (0%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	32.7 parties avg	2.7	60%
Partial	12.0 parties avg	2.0	20%
Won	12.0 parties avg	2.0	20%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2001	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2004	32.3 parties avg	2.3
2010	13.0 parties avg	3.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	3(60%)	60%
Partial	1(20%)	20%
Won	1(20%)	20%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	3,500.00	1,750.002 cases	2

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2001	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2004	3 111	Lost: 1 cases (33.3%) Partial: 1 cases (33.3%) Won: 1 cases (33.3%)
2010	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 5 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Mohamed Yusoff v Umi Kalsom: Judicial Review of Syariah Court's Matrimonial Property Division 14 Apr 2010 Mohamed Yusoff bin Mohd Haniff (Applicant)Lost	14 Apr 2010	Mohamed Yusoff bin Mohd Haniff (Applicant): Application dismissedApplication for leave for judicial review was dismissed.
2	Pacrim Investments v Tan Mui Keow Claire: Company Secretary's Power & Share Transfer Moratorium 24 Oct 2004 Pacrim Investments Pte Ltd (Plaintiff)Lost	24 Oct 2004	Pacrim Investments Pte Ltd (Plaintiff): Application dismissedThe plaintiff's application was dismissed with costs. The judgment does not specify a currency, so SGD is assumed as the currency of the jurisdiction.
3	Top Ten Entertainment v Lucky Red: Illegal Contracts & Rent Apportionment Dispute 14 Sep 2004 Lucky Red Investments Ltd (Respondent)Partial	14 Sep 2004	Lucky Red Investments Ltd (Respondent): Appeal dismissed in partThe appeal was dismissed in part regarding the hiring charges.
4	Top Ten Entertainment v Lucky Red: Rent Reduction & Legality of Hiring Charges 24 Feb 2004 Lucky Red Investments Ltd (Defendant by counterclaim)Won	24 Feb 2004	Lucky Red Investments Ltd (Defendant by counterclaim): Counterclaim AllowedLucky Red's counterclaim for shortfall in the payment of rent (including the hiring charge) between January and November 2000 and between November 2001 and March 2002 together with interest, as particularised in Lucky Red’s various invoices, succeeded. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
5	Tunas (Pte) Ltd v Ng Man-Leong: Appeal on Striking Out Statement of Claim for Relitigating Prior Actions 29 Jan 2001 Tunas Pte Ltd (Plaintiff, Respondent)Lost	29 Jan 2001	Tunas Pte Ltd (Plaintiff, Respondent): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed; ordered to pay $3,500 in costs to the Defendant (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).