Roe Ervin Jun Zhi

Roe Ervin Jun Zhi is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2020 to 2021. The lawyer has handled 2 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 1 law firm. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in misrepresentation and fraud and deceit. Their track record shows a 50.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 1 complex case, representing 50% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Roe Ervin Jun Zhi has demonstrated expertise across 7 primary practice areas, with significant experience in misrepresentation and fraud and deceit.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Misrepresentation	2 cases	20% of total caseload	Highly Specialized88% relevance score	Roe Ervin Jun Zhi has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 20% of their total caseload.
Fraud and Deceit	2 cases	20% of total caseload	Highly Specialized88% relevance score	Roe Ervin Jun Zhi has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 20% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	2 cases	20% of total caseload	Experienced53% relevance score	Roe Ervin Jun Zhi has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 20% of their total caseload.
Civil Litigation	1 cases	10% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Roe Ervin Jun Zhi has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 10% of their total caseload.
Conspiracy by Unlawful Means	1 cases	10% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Roe Ervin Jun Zhi has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 10% of their total caseload.
Negligence	1 cases	10% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Roe Ervin Jun Zhi has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 10% of their total caseload.
Property Law	1 cases	10% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Roe Ervin Jun Zhi has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 10% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Roe Ervin Jun Zhi has been affiliated with 1 law firm. The most active affiliation involves 2 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
CNPLaw LLP	2 cases	100% of cases	Lim Bee Lan v Lee Juan Loong: Fraudulent & Negligent Misrepresentation in ABT Investment(Oct 2021) Changi Makan v Development 2003: Fraudulent Misrepresentation & Conspiracy in Property Sale(Feb 2020)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Roe Ervin Jun Zhi's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 4.0
Complex Cases: 1 (50%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Dismissed	15.0 parties avg	5.0	50%
Won	13.0 parties avg	3.0	50%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2020	15.0 parties avg	5.0
2021	13.0 parties avg	3.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Roe Ervin Jun Zhi's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Dismissed	1(50%)	50%
Won	1(50%)	50%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	298,535.09	298,535.091 cases	1

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2020	1 1	Dismissed: 1 cases (100.0%)
2021	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 2 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Lim Bee Lan v Lee Juan Loong: Fraudulent & Negligent Misrepresentation in ABT Investment 13 Oct 2021 Lim Bee Lan (Plaintiff)Won	13 Oct 2021	Lim Bee Lan (Plaintiff): Claim AllowedJudgment for the Plaintiff; the Defendants are to pay the Plaintiff the sum of S$298,535.09, which is the difference between the sum invested by the Plaintiff for 5% of ABT shares and the actual value of those shares at the time of investment (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
2	Changi Makan v Development 2003: Fraudulent Misrepresentation & Conspiracy in Property Sale 06 Feb 2020 Changi Makan Pte Ltd (Plaintiff)Dismissed	06 Feb 2020	Changi Makan Pte Ltd (Plaintiff): Claim DismissedThe plaintiff's claim against the defendants was dismissed.