Philip Teh

Philip Teh is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2022 to 2024. The lawyer has handled 2 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 1 law firm. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in civil practice and insolvency law. They have managed 1 complex case, representing 50% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Philip Teh has demonstrated expertise across 15 primary practice areas, with significant experience in civil litigation and civil practice.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Civil Litigation	2 cases	13% of total caseload	General Practice43% relevance score	Philip Teh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 13% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	1 cases	6% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Philip Teh has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Commercial Litigation	1 cases	6% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Philip Teh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Construction Contracts	1 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	Philip Teh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Construction Law	1 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Philip Teh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Litigation	1 cases	6% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Philip Teh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Insolvency Law	1 cases	6% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Philip Teh has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Winding Up	1 cases	6% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Philip Teh has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Restructuring and Dissolution	1 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Philip Teh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Commercial Disputes	1 cases	6% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Philip Teh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Jurisdiction	1 cases	6% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Philip Teh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Costs	1 cases	6% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Philip Teh has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Garnishee Proceedings	1 cases	6% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Philip Teh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Arbitration	1 cases	6% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Philip Teh has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	1 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Philip Teh has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Philip Teh has been affiliated with 1 law firm. The most active affiliation involves 2 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP	2 cases	100% of cases	JTrust Asia v Group Lease Holdings: Winding Up Application for Inability to Pay Debts(Jul 2024) Comfort Management v OGSP Engineering: Costs Allocation After Breach of Contract Dispute(Apr 2022)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Philip Teh's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 3.5
Complex Cases: 1 (50%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	14.0 parties avg	4.0	50%
Partial	13.0 parties avg	3.0	50%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2022	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2024	14.0 parties avg	4.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	1(50%)	50%
Partial	1(50%)	50%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	388,442.65	194,221.332 cases	2

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2022	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)
2024	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 2 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	JTrust Asia v Group Lease Holdings: Winding Up Application for Inability to Pay Debts 25 Jul 2024 Group Lease Holdings Pte Ltd (Defendant)Lost	25 Jul 2024	Group Lease Holdings Pte Ltd (Defendant): Winding up order grantedOrdered that Group Lease Holdings Pte Ltd be wound up. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
2	Comfort Management v OGSP Engineering: Costs Allocation After Breach of Contract Dispute 05 Apr 2022 COMFORT MANAGEMENT PTE LTD (Plaintiff, Defendant in Counterclaim)Partial	05 Apr 2022	COMFORT MANAGEMENT PTE LTD (Plaintiff, Defendant in Counterclaim): Judgment for PlaintiffJudgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $388,442.65 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore) and costs of $151,805.95. The plaintiff was deprived of 50% of its costs.