Subramaniam Sundaram

Subramaniam Sundaram is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2013 to 2014. The lawyer has handled 2 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 1 law firm. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in negligence and personal injury.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Subramaniam Sundaram has demonstrated expertise across 23 primary practice areas, with significant experience in building and construction contracts and construction law.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Building and Construction Contracts	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Subramaniam Sundaram has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Construction Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Subramaniam Sundaram has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Negligence	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Subramaniam Sundaram has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Personal Injury	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Subramaniam Sundaram has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Torts	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Subramaniam Sundaram has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Work Injury Compensation	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Subramaniam Sundaram has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Measure of Damages	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Subramaniam Sundaram has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Contractual terms	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Subramaniam Sundaram has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Causation	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Subramaniam Sundaram has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Contributory negligence	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Subramaniam Sundaram has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Breach of Duty	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Subramaniam Sundaram has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Estoppel	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Subramaniam Sundaram has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Reasonable Skill and Care	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Subramaniam Sundaram 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 Practice30% relevance score	Subramaniam Sundaram has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Evidence	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Subramaniam Sundaram has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Subramaniam Sundaram has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Best Efforts Clause	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice5% relevance score	Subramaniam Sundaram has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Workplace accident	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Subramaniam Sundaram has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Hotel Management Agreement	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice5% relevance score	Subramaniam Sundaram has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Insurance Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice5% relevance score	Subramaniam Sundaram has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Electrical Engineering	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Subramaniam Sundaram has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Licensed Electrical Worker Duties	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Subramaniam Sundaram has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Hotel Operations	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Subramaniam Sundaram has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Subramaniam Sundaram has been affiliated with 1 law firm. The most active affiliation involves 2 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Bogaars & Din	2 cases	100% of cases	Hotel Royal v J M Pang: Flashover Incident, Electrical Maintenance, and Licensed Electrical Worker Liability(Jun 2014) Tian Shaokai v Tiong Hwa Steel: Damages for Workplace Injury and Loss of Earnings(May 2013)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Subramaniam Sundaram's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 2.0
Complex Cases: 0 (0%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	12.0 parties avg	2.0	50%
Partial	12.0 parties avg	2.0	50%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2013	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2014	12.0 parties avg	2.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	1(50%)	50%
Partial	1(50%)	50%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	164,885.45	82,442.732 cases	2

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2013	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2014	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 2 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Hotel Royal v J M Pang: Flashover Incident, Electrical Maintenance, and Licensed Electrical Worker Liability 01 Jun 2014 Hotel Royal @ Queens Pte Ltd trading as Hotel Royal @ Queens (Plaintiff)Partial	01 Jun 2014	Hotel Royal @ Queens Pte Ltd trading as Hotel Royal @ Queens (Plaintiff): Judgment for Plaintiff in partPlaintiff to bear 30% of the loss. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
2	Tian Shaokai v Tiong Hwa Steel: Damages for Workplace Injury and Loss of Earnings 12 May 2013 Tiong Hwa Steel Sructures Pte Ltd (Defendant)Lost	12 May 2013	Tiong Hwa Steel Sructures Pte Ltd (Defendant): Judgment against DefendantJudgment against the defendant; required to pay $164,885.45 in damages (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).