Ruth Yeo

Ruth Yeo is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2015 to 2017. The lawyer has handled 5 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 1 law firm. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in res judicata and civil practice. Their track record shows a 80.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 1 complex case, representing 20% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Ruth Yeo has demonstrated expertise across 19 primary practice areas, with significant experience in administrative law and judicial review.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Administrative Law	5 cases	17% of total caseload	Experienced61% relevance score	Ruth Yeo has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 5 cases which represents 17% of their total caseload.
Judicial Review	3 cases	10% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Ruth Yeo has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 10% of their total caseload.
Res Judicata	2 cases	7% of total caseload	Highly Specialized93% relevance score	Ruth Yeo has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	2 cases	7% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Ruth Yeo has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	2 cases	7% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Ruth Yeo has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Civil Litigation	2 cases	7% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	Ruth Yeo has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Jurisdiction	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Ruth Yeo has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Criminal Procedure	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Ruth Yeo has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Abuse of Process	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Ruth Yeo has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Income taxation	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Ruth Yeo has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Prison Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Ruth Yeo has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Vexatious litigants	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Ruth Yeo has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Appeal	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Ruth Yeo has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Inherent Power of the Court	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Ruth Yeo has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Ruth Yeo has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Constitutional Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Ruth Yeo has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Employment Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Ruth Yeo has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
International Tax Cooperation	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Ruth Yeo has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Property Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Ruth Yeo has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Ruth Yeo has been affiliated with 1 law firm. The most active affiliation involves 5 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Attorney-General’s Chambers	5 cases	100% of cases	AXY v Comptroller of Income Tax: Judicial Review of Tax Information Exchange(Mar 2017) Lai Swee Lin Linda v Attorney-General: Vexatious Litigant Designation(Sep 2016) Lai Swee Lin Linda v Attorney-General: Vexatious Litigant Order for Abuse of Process(Oct 2015)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Ruth Yeo's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 2.8
Complex Cases: 1 (20%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Neutral	16.0 parties avg	6.0	20%
Won	42.0 parties avg	2.0	80%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2015	32.0 parties avg	2.0
2016	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2017	16.0 parties avg	6.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Neutral	1(20%)	20%
Won	4(80%)	80%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	5,000.00	1,250.004 cases	4

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2015	3 3	Won: 3 cases (100.0%)
2016	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2017	1 1	Neutral: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 5 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	AXY v Comptroller of Income Tax: Judicial Review of Tax Information Exchange 01 Mar 2017 Attorney-General (Intervener)Neutral	01 Mar 2017	Attorney-General (Intervener): Application dismissedApplication for judicial review dismissed; costs awarded to the Attorney-General's Chambers (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
2	Lai Swee Lin Linda v Attorney-General: Vexatious Litigant Designation 04 Sep 2016 Attorney-General (Respondent)Won	04 Sep 2016	Attorney-General (Respondent): Application GrantedApplication to designate Ms. Lai a vexatious litigant granted; costs of $5,000 and disbursements of $2,325 awarded to the Attorney-General (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
3	Lai Swee Lin Linda v Attorney-General: Vexatious Litigant Order for Abuse of Process 18 Oct 2015 Attorney-General (Applicant)Won	18 Oct 2015	Attorney-General (Applicant): Application grantedThe Attorney-General's application under s 74 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act for a vexatious litigant order against Mdm Lai was granted. The currency is assumed to be SGD, the currency of the jurisdiction.
4	Lai Swee Lin Linda v Attorney-General: Res Judicata & Wrongful Termination 18 Oct 2015 Attorney-General (Respondent)Won	18 Oct 2015	Attorney-General (Respondent): Application DismissedThe respondent successfully defended against the application. No monetary amount was specified. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
5	Madan Mohan Singh v Attorney-General: Judicial Review of Singapore Prison Service Hair Grooming Policy 24 Feb 2015 Attorney-General (Respondent)Won	24 Feb 2015	Attorney-General (Respondent): Application to Strike Out GrantedThe respondent's application to strike out the originating summons was granted.