Szetoh Khai Hoe Terence

Szetoh Khai Hoe Terence is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2019 to 2019. The lawyer has handled 1 case in Singapore's courts. Associated with 1 law firm. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in civil practice and striking out. Their track record shows a 100.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 1 complex case, representing 100% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Szetoh Khai Hoe Terence has demonstrated expertise across 8 primary practice areas, with significant experience in administrative law and civil practice.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Administrative Law	1 cases	13% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Szetoh Khai Hoe Terence has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 13% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	1 cases	13% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Szetoh Khai Hoe Terence has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 13% of their total caseload.
Property Law	1 cases	13% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Szetoh Khai Hoe Terence has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 13% of their total caseload.
Striking out	1 cases	13% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Szetoh Khai Hoe Terence has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 13% of their total caseload.
Trust Law	1 cases	13% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Szetoh Khai Hoe Terence has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 13% of their total caseload.
Statutory Interpretation	1 cases	13% of total caseload	General Practice25% relevance score	Szetoh Khai Hoe Terence has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 13% of their total caseload.
Muslim Law	1 cases	13% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Szetoh Khai Hoe Terence has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 13% of their total caseload.
Wakaf Law	1 cases	13% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Szetoh Khai Hoe Terence has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 13% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Szetoh Khai Hoe Terence has been affiliated with 1 law firm. The most active affiliation involves 1 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Attorney-General’s Chambers	1 cases	100% of cases	Fauziyah bte Mohd Ahbidin v Singapore Land Authority: Striking Out Action Regarding Land Acquisition and Title Claim(Dec 2019)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Szetoh Khai Hoe Terence's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 4.0
Complex Cases: 1 (100%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Won	14.0 parties avg	4.0	100%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2019	14.0 parties avg	4.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Szetoh Khai Hoe Terence's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Won	1(100%)	100%

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2019	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 1 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Fauziyah bte Mohd Ahbidin v Singapore Land Authority: Striking Out Action Regarding Land Acquisition and Title Claim 17 Dec 2019 Attorney-General of the Republic of Singapore (Defendant)Won	17 Dec 2019	Attorney-General of the Republic of Singapore (Defendant): Judgment for DefendantThe defendant's application to strike out the action was granted.