Shaun Lee

Shaun Lee is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2010 to 2018. The lawyer has handled 5 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 2 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in escrow agreements and non-compete agreement.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Shaun Lee has demonstrated expertise across 25 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and breach of contract.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	5 cases	13% of total caseload	Experienced67% relevance score	Shaun Lee has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 5 cases which represents 13% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	2 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced58% relevance score	Shaun Lee has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Commercial Disputes	2 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Shaun Lee has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Summary Judgement	2 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice38% relevance score	Shaun Lee has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Breach of Confidence	2 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced68% relevance score	Shaun Lee has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Escrow Agreements	2 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Shaun Lee has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Estoppel	2 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice25% relevance score	Shaun Lee has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Bankruptcy	2 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced68% relevance score	Shaun Lee has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	2 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Shaun Lee has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Arbitration	2 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Shaun Lee has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Interlocutory injunction	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Shaun Lee has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Evidence	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Shaun Lee has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Company Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Shaun Lee has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Fund Management	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Shaun Lee has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Non-Compete Agreement	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Shaun Lee has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Confidentiality Agreement	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Shaun Lee has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Corporate Litigation	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Shaun Lee has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Insolvency Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Shaun Lee has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Injunctions	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Shaun Lee has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Fiduciary Duties	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Shaun Lee has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Jurisdiction	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Shaun Lee has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Riddick principle	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Shaun Lee has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Settlement Agreement	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Shaun Lee has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
International Commercial Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice25% relevance score	Shaun Lee has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Agency Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Shaun Lee has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Shaun Lee has been affiliated with 2 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 4 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Wong & Leow LLC	4 cases	80% of cases	Astrata v Portcullis: Escrow Agreement Dispute over AGI's Chapter 11 Reorganisation(Apr 2011) Littau v Astrata: Discovery of Electronically Stored Documents & Keyword Search in Anton Piller Order Execution(Mar 2011) Littau v Astrata: Interim Injunction & Non-Compete Agreement Dispute(Dec 2010)
Bird & Bird ATMD LLP	1 cases	20% of cases	Bajaj v Ueda: Dispute Over Settlement Agreement & Bankruptcy Proceedings(Oct 2018)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Shaun Lee's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 2.4
Complex Cases: 0 (0%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	22.5 parties avg	2.5	40%
Neutral	12.0 parties avg	2.0	20%
Partial	22.5 parties avg	2.5	40%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2010	22.5 parties avg	2.5
2011	22.5 parties avg	2.5
2018	12.0 parties avg	2.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	2(40%)	40%
Neutral	1(20%)	20%
Partial	2(40%)	40%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	5,000.00	1,666.673 cases	3

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2010	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Partial: 1 cases (50.0%)
2011	2 11	Neutral: 1 cases (50.0%) Partial: 1 cases (50.0%)
2018	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 5 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Bajaj v Ueda: Dispute Over Settlement Agreement & Bankruptcy Proceedings 21 Oct 2018 Yashwant Bajaj (Plaintiff, Appellant)Lost	21 Oct 2018	Yashwant Bajaj (Plaintiff, Appellant): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed; costs awarded to the defendant and fixed at $5,000 (inclusive of disbursements). Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
2	Astrata v Portcullis: Escrow Agreement Dispute over AGI's Chapter 11 Reorganisation 28 Apr 2011 Astrata (Singapore) Pte Ltd (Appellant, Applicant)Partial	28 Apr 2011	Astrata (Singapore) Pte Ltd (Appellant, Applicant): Appeal allowed in partApplication for leave to appeal granted and declared that Tridex is not entitled to delivery of the Escrow Property; appeals dismissed.
3	Littau v Astrata: Discovery of Electronically Stored Documents & Keyword Search in Anton Piller Order Execution 17 Mar 2011 Astrata (Asia Pacific) Pte Ltd (Defendant)Neutral	17 Mar 2011	Astrata (Asia Pacific) Pte Ltd (Defendant): Directions made for discoveryDirections made for keyword searches to be conducted on seized electronic documents to identify discoverable information.
4	Littau v Astrata: Interim Injunction & Non-Compete Agreement Dispute 09 Dec 2010 Astrata (Asia Pacific) Pte Ltd (Defendant)Partial	09 Dec 2010	Astrata (Asia Pacific) Pte Ltd (Defendant): Orders granted to the defendant were ordered to stand, except for the part of paragraph 2 that allowed the defendant to use the information and documents disclosed or produced pursuant to the search orders for purposes of any claim against the plaintiff as well as the Tridex Companies in and outside Singapore.Orders granted to the defendant were ordered to stand, except for the part of paragraph 2 that allowed the defendant to use the information and documents disclosed or produced pursuant to the search orders for purposes of any claim against the plaintiff as well as the Tridex Companies in and outside Singapore. The court ordered costs at 90% to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant, the deduction of 10% being the costs attributed to the arguments on the Riddick principle. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
5	Bidvest v Deacons: Escrow Agreement Dispute over US$4 Million Payout 26 Apr 2010 Bidvest Australia Ltd (Plaintiff)Lost	26 Apr 2010	Bidvest Australia Ltd (Plaintiff): Claim DismissedBidvest's claim that Deacons wrongly paid out the Escrow Sum was dismissed. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.