Tan Aik How

Tan Aik How is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2005 to 2006. The lawyer has handled 3 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 2 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in contract law and breach of contract. Their track record shows a 33.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 1 complex case, representing 33% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Tan Aik How has demonstrated expertise across 14 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and breach of contract.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	3 cases	18% of total caseload	Highly Specialized81% relevance score	Tan Aik How has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 18% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	2 cases	12% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Aik How has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 12% of their total caseload.
Contracts	1 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Tan Aik How has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Insurance Bad Faith	1 cases	6% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Tan Aik How has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Fiduciary Duties	1 cases	6% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Tan Aik How has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Fraud and Deceit	1 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Tan Aik How has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Conspiracy by Unlawful Means	1 cases	6% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Aik How has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Termination	1 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Tan Aik How has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Company Law	1 cases	6% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Tan Aik How has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Sale of Goods	1 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Tan Aik How has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Repudiation of contract	1 cases	6% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Aik How has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Premium Funding Arrangement	1 cases	6% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Tan Aik How has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Construction of contractual term	1 cases	6% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Tan Aik How has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Commercial Litigation	1 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Tan Aik How has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Tan Aik How has been affiliated with 2 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 2 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Hin Tat Augustine and Partners	2 cases	67% of cases	Premium Funding v SHC Capital: Premium Funding Agreement & Policy Termination Dispute(Oct 2005) Lim Kian Kiong v Tan Seng Teck: Contractual Term Construction & Repudiation(Jun 2005)
Hin Tat Augustine & Partners	1 cases	33% of cases	SM Trading v Intersanctuary: Conspiracy & Fiduciary Duty in Columbarium Contract Dispute(Jun 2006)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Tan Aik How's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 5.0
Complex Cases: 1 (33%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Dismissed	13.0 parties avg	3.0	33%
Lost	13.0 parties avg	3.0	33%
Won	17.0 parties avg	7.0	33%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2005	25.7 parties avg	5.7
2006	13.0 parties avg	3.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Tan Aik How's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Dismissed	1(33%)	33%
Lost	1(33%)	33%
Won	1(33%)	33%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	1,381,800.00	690,900.002 cases	2

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2005	2 11	Dismissed: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2006	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 3 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	SM Trading v Intersanctuary: Conspiracy & Fiduciary Duty in Columbarium Contract Dispute 14 Jun 2006 Kek Kim Hok (Third Party)Lost	14 Jun 2006	Kek Kim Hok (Third Party): Damages to be assessedDamages to be assessed against the third party, Kek Kim Hok, for breach of fiduciary duty.
2	Premium Funding v SHC Capital: Premium Funding Agreement & Policy Termination Dispute 17 Oct 2005 SHC Capital Ltd (Defendant)Dismissed	17 Oct 2005	SHC Capital Ltd (Defendant): Claim Dismissed in partThe plaintiff is entitled to give notice to terminate the CAR policy and that it is entitled to a rateable portion of the premiums for the unexpired term of the CAR policy as at 26 June 2004 with interest from 26 July 2004 (as the refund is payable 30 days after termination) at 3% per annum to the time the amount of the refund is fixed, and costs. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
3	Lim Kian Kiong v Tan Seng Teck: Contractual Term Construction & Repudiation 02 Jun 2005 Low Peck Lian (Plaintiff)Won	02 Jun 2005	Low Peck Lian (Plaintiff): Claim AllowedJudgment for the Plaintiff; damages awarded in the amount of $690,900 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).