Rathna Nathan

Rathna Nathan is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2000 to 2005. The lawyer has handled 4 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 2 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in damages and civil practice. Their track record shows a 25.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 1 complex case, representing 25% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Rathna Nathan has demonstrated expertise across 28 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and damages.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	3 cases	9% of total caseload	Experienced53% relevance score	Rathna Nathan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 9% of their total caseload.
Damages	2 cases	6% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Rathna Nathan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	2 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced58% relevance score	Rathna Nathan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Rathna Nathan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Commercial Leasing	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Rathna Nathan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Conveyance	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Rathna Nathan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Conveyancing	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Rathna Nathan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Cross-Border Insolvency	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Rathna Nathan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Insurance Bad Faith	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Rathna Nathan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Negligence	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Rathna Nathan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Personal Injury	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Rathna Nathan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Property Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Rathna Nathan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Commercial Disputes	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Rathna Nathan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Misrepresentation	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Rathna Nathan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Estoppel	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Rathna Nathan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Double Recovery	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Rathna Nathan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Collateral Benefits	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Rathna Nathan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Judgments and Orders	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Rathna Nathan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Duty of disclosure	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Rathna Nathan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Quantification of Damages	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Rathna Nathan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Writ of Seizure and Sale	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Rathna Nathan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Locus Standi	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Rathna Nathan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Operational Losses	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	Rathna Nathan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Solicitor's Letter	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Rathna Nathan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Automobile Accidents	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Rathna Nathan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Attachment Order	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Rathna Nathan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Bankruptcy	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Rathna Nathan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Business Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice15% relevance score	Rathna Nathan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Rathna Nathan has been affiliated with 2 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 2 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Assomull & Partners	2 cases	50% of cases	Focus Electronics v Touch Universal: Validity of Sale Agreement & Caveat(Aug 2000) Emjay Enterprises v Thakral Brothers: Setting Aside Attachment Order & Priority of Sale Proceeds(Jul 2000)
Assomull and Partners	2 cases	50% of cases	ABC Supermarket v Kosma Holdings: Claim for Operational Losses Due to Defective Air-Conditioning(Feb 2005) Lo Lee Len v Grand Interior Renovation: Negligence, Damages & Double Recovery(Feb 2004)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Rathna Nathan's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 2.8
Complex Cases: 1 (25%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	22.0 parties avg	2.0	50%
Partial	12.0 parties avg	2.0	25%
Won	15.0 parties avg	5.0	25%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2000	22.0 parties avg	2.0
2004	15.0 parties avg	5.0
2005	12.0 parties avg	2.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	2(50%)	50%
Partial	1(25%)	25%
Won	1(25%)	25%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	60,673.50	20,224.503 cases	3

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2000	2 2	Lost: 2 cases (100.0%)
2004	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2005	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 4 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	ABC Supermarket v Kosma Holdings: Claim for Operational Losses Due to Defective Air-Conditioning 27 Feb 2005 ABC Supermarket Pte Ltd (Appellant)Partial	27 Feb 2005	ABC Supermarket Pte Ltd (Appellant): Appeal allowed in partAppeal allowed in part, damages increased to $54,623.50, including rectification costs and compensation for additional losses. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
2	Lo Lee Len v Grand Interior Renovation: Negligence, Damages & Double Recovery 09 Feb 2004 Grand Interior Renovation Works Pte Ltd (Respondent)Won	09 Feb 2004	Grand Interior Renovation Works Pte Ltd (Respondent): Judgment for RespondentJudgment for the respondent for $450 (policy excess) and $600 (loss of use). Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
3	Focus Electronics v Touch Universal: Validity of Sale Agreement & Caveat 23 Aug 2000 Focus Electronics Pte Ltd (Plaintiff)Lost	23 Aug 2000	Focus Electronics Pte Ltd (Plaintiff): Action DismissedPlaintiffs' action to invalidate the sale agreement and remove the caveat was dismissed with costs. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
4	Emjay Enterprises v Thakral Brothers: Setting Aside Attachment Order & Priority of Sale Proceeds 30 Jul 2000 Emjay Enterprises Pte Ltd (Plaintiff)Lost	30 Jul 2000	Emjay Enterprises Pte Ltd (Plaintiff): Application dismissedThe originating summons was dismissed with costs fixed at $5,000 to be paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.