Raymond Lam

Raymond Lam is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2002 to 2013. The lawyer has handled 4 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 2 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in recognition of foreign judgments and construction law. Their track record shows a 75.0% success rate in resolved cases.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Raymond Lam has demonstrated expertise across 21 primary practice areas, with significant experience in company law and recognition of foreign judgments.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Company Law	3 cases	11% of total caseload	Experienced58% relevance score	Raymond Lam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.
Recognition of Foreign Judgments	2 cases	7% of total caseload	Highly Specialized93% relevance score	Raymond Lam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Winding Up	2 cases	7% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Raymond Lam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	2 cases	7% of total caseload	General Practice48% relevance score	Raymond Lam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Arbitration	2 cases	7% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Raymond Lam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Construction Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Raymond Lam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Judicial Management	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Raymond Lam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Litigation	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Raymond Lam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Foreign Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Raymond Lam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Raymond Lam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Damages	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Raymond Lam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Liquidation	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Raymond Lam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Professional Negligence	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice35% relevance score	Raymond Lam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Corporate Governance Disputes	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Raymond Lam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Defective Works	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	Raymond Lam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Debt Restructuring	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Raymond Lam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Building Contracts	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Raymond Lam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Architects and Engineers Liability	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Raymond Lam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Banking and Finance	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Raymond Lam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Bankruptcy	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Raymond Lam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Raymond Lam 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

Raymond Lam has been affiliated with 2 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 3 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Drew & Napier LLC	3 cases	75% of cases	Sarawak Timber v Asia Pulp: Enforcement of Malaysian Judgment on Unpaid Share Capital(Nov 2013) Sarawak Timber v Asia Pulp: Setting Aside Registration Order Under RECJA(Mar 2013) Deutsche Bank v Asia Pulp & Paper: Judicial Management Order Dispute(Oct 2002)
Raymond Lam & Lim Partnership	1 cases	25% of cases	Steelcrete v James Low: Construction Contract Dispute over Pet Farm Project(Jan 2002)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Raymond Lam's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 3.0
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	25%
Won	33.0 parties avg	3.0	75%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2002	23.0 parties avg	3.0
2013	23.0 parties avg	3.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	1(25%)	25%
Won	3(75%)	75%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	22,575.00	11,287.502 cases	2

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2002	2 2	Won: 2 cases (100.0%)
2013	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 4 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Sarawak Timber v Asia Pulp: Enforcement of Malaysian Judgment on Unpaid Share Capital 12 Nov 2013 Asia Pulp & Paper Co Ltd (Respondent)Lost	12 Nov 2013	Asia Pulp & Paper Co Ltd (Respondent): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed. Assumed SGD as the judgment was delivered in Singapore.
2	Sarawak Timber v Asia Pulp: Setting Aside Registration Order Under RECJA 26 Mar 2013 Asia Pulp & Paper Co Ltd (Respondent)Won	26 Mar 2013	Asia Pulp & Paper Co Ltd (Respondent): Summons AllowedSummons to set aside the Registration Order was allowed.
3	Deutsche Bank v Asia Pulp & Paper: Judicial Management Order Dispute 30 Oct 2002 Asia Pulp & Paper Company Ltd (Respondent)Won	30 Oct 2002	Asia Pulp & Paper Company Ltd (Respondent): Petition dismissedThe petition for a judicial management order was dismissed.
4	Steelcrete v James Low: Construction Contract Dispute over Pet Farm Project 30 Jan 2002 Klay Associates (Third Party)Won	30 Jan 2002	Klay Associates (Third Party): Judgment for the Third Party's counterclaimJudgment for the Third Party's counterclaim against the defendant in the sum of $22,575, plus interest at 6% per annum from the date of the writ in Suit No. 564 of 2000 and costs. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.