R Narayanan

R Narayanan is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2002 to 2009. The lawyer has handled 3 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 1 law firm. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in negligence and personal injury. Their track record shows a 67.0% success rate in resolved cases.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

R Narayanan has demonstrated expertise across 23 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and property law.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	3 cases	12% of total caseload	General Practice47% relevance score	R Narayanan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 12% of their total caseload.
Property Law	2 cases	8% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	R Narayanan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Banking Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice15% relevance score	R Narayanan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Negligence	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	R Narayanan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Personal Injury	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	R Narayanan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Torts	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	R Narayanan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Wills and Probate	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	R Narayanan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Fraud and Deceit	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	R Narayanan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Evidence Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	R Narayanan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Undue Influence	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	R Narayanan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Causation	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	R Narayanan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Contributory negligence	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	R Narayanan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Road Traffic Act	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	R Narayanan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Estoppel	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	R Narayanan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	R Narayanan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Specific performance	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	R Narayanan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Evidence	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	R Narayanan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Succession Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	R Narayanan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Intestacy	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	R Narayanan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Option to Purchase	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	R Narayanan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	R Narayanan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Letters of Administration	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	R Narayanan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Automobile Accidents	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	R Narayanan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

R Narayanan has been affiliated with 1 law firm. The most active affiliation involves 3 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Hilborne & Co	3 cases	100% of cases	Mohamed Ali v Tan Ah Bee: Specific Performance of Option to Purchase for Property(Dec 2009) Vellasamy Lakshimi v Muthusamy Suppiah David: Fraud and Undue Influence in Property Transfer(Mar 2003) Kong Chok Wai v Ha Siew Sen: Negligence in Motorcycle-Bus Collision on Woodlands Road(Nov 2002)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of R Narayanan's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 2.3
Complex Cases: 0 (0%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	13.0 parties avg	3.0	33%
Won	22.0 parties avg	2.0	67%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2002	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2003	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2009	12.0 parties avg	2.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	1(33%)	33%
Won	2(67%)	67%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	0.00	0.002 cases	2

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2002	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2003	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2009	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 3 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Mohamed Ali v Tan Ah Bee: Specific Performance of Option to Purchase for Property 08 Dec 2009 Mohamed Ali s/o Abdul Razak (Plaintiff)Won	08 Dec 2009	Mohamed Ali s/o Abdul Razak (Plaintiff): Judgment for PlaintiffThe court ordered specific performance of the Option in particular as follows: (1) That the Plaintiff pay S$13,000 to the Defendant and (2) That the Defendant (i) executes all necessary documents and to take all necessary action to effectively transfer the Property to the Plaintiff, failing which the Registrar of the Supreme Court, be empowered to do so. (ii) pays the Plaintiff interest for late completion in accordance with The Singapore Law Society’s Conditions of Sale 1999. (iii) pays the Plaintiff, in damages the sum of S$2,500 per month being the rental from 11 September 2009 (the original date of completion) to actual date of completion pursuant to this Order. (iv) pays the Plaintiff’s costs and disbursements, with such costs and disbursements to be agreed or taxed. The currency is assumed to be SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
2	Vellasamy Lakshimi v Muthusamy Suppiah David: Fraud and Undue Influence in Property Transfer 31 Mar 2003 Muthusamy Suppiah David (Defendant)Won	31 Mar 2003	Muthusamy Suppiah David (Defendant): Judgment for DefendantJudgment in favour of the defendant; the plaintiff's claims were dismissed. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
3	Kong Chok Wai v Ha Siew Sen: Negligence in Motorcycle-Bus Collision on Woodlands Road 10 Nov 2002 Ha Siew Sen (Defendant)Lost	10 Nov 2002	Ha Siew Sen (Defendant): Judgment against first defendantJudgment against Ha Siew Sen.