Tan Ben Mathias

Tan Ben Mathias is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2017 to 2024. The lawyer has handled 7 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 2 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in sentencing and criminal procedure. Their track record shows a 50.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 1 complex case, representing 14% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Tan Ben Mathias has demonstrated expertise across 24 primary practice areas, with significant experience in sentencing and criminal procedure.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Sentencing	4 cases	11% of total caseload	Highly Specialized86% relevance score	Tan Ben Mathias has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.
Criminal Procedure	4 cases	11% of total caseload	Highly Specialized76% relevance score	Tan Ben Mathias has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	3 cases	8% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Tan Ben Mathias has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Criminal Law	3 cases	8% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Tan Ben Mathias has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	2 cases	6% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Tan Ben Mathias has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Appeal	2 cases	6% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Tan Ben Mathias has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Commercial Disputes	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Tan Ben Mathias has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Transfer of Cases	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Tan Ben Mathias has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Criminal Revision	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Tan Ben Mathias has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Misuse of Drugs Act	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Tan Ben Mathias has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Commercial Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice5% relevance score	Tan Ben Mathias has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Prevention of Corruption Act	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Tan Ben Mathias has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Banking and Finance	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Tan Ben Mathias has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Witnesses	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Ben Mathias has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Evidence	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Tan Ben Mathias has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Tan Ben Mathias has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Company Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Tan Ben Mathias has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Police Impersonation Scam	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Tan Ben Mathias has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Duty of disclosure	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Tan Ben Mathias has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Contractual Interpretation	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Tan Ben Mathias has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Guarantees and indemnities	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Tan Ben Mathias has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Legal Professional Privilege	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Tan Ben Mathias has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Litigation Privilege	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Tan Ben Mathias has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
White Collar Crime	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Tan Ben Mathias has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Tan Ben Mathias has been affiliated with 2 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 6 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Attorney-General’s Chambers	6 cases	86% of cases	Pritam Singh v Public Prosecutor: Transfer of Case Application under Criminal Procedure Code(Sep 2024) Goh Ngak Eng v Public Prosecutor: Private Sector Corruption & Sentencing Framework under Prevention of Corruption Act(Oct 2022) Effrizan Kamisran v Public Prosecutor: Drug Rehabilitation, Prosecutorial Discretion, and Abuse of Process(Jul 2020)
Drew & Napier LLC	1 cases	14% of cases	CIFG v Polimet: Interpretation of Indemnity Clause in Convertible Bond Agreements(Feb 2017)

Case Complexity Analysis

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

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 4.1
Complex Cases: 1 (14%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	18.0 parties avg	8.0	14%
Neutral	26.3 parties avg	6.3	29%
Partial	12.0 parties avg	2.0	14%
Won	42.0 parties avg	2.0	57%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2017	18.0 parties avg	8.0
2018	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2019	22.5 parties avg	2.5
2020	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2022	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2024	12.0 parties avg	2.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	1(13%)	13%
Neutral	2(25%)	25%
Partial	1(13%)	13%
Won	4(50%)	50%

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2017	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Neutral: 1 cases (50.0%)
2018	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)
2019	2 11	Neutral: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2020	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2022	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2024	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 7 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Pritam Singh v Public Prosecutor: Transfer of Case Application under Criminal Procedure Code 08 Sep 2024 Public Prosecutor (Respondent)Won	08 Sep 2024	Public Prosecutor (Respondent): Application DismissedThe application to transfer the case from the State Courts to the High Court was dismissed.
2	Goh Ngak Eng v Public Prosecutor: Private Sector Corruption & Sentencing Framework under Prevention of Corruption Act 11 Oct 2022 Public Prosecutor (Respondent)Won	11 Oct 2022	Public Prosecutor (Respondent): Sentence EnhancedThe court enhanced the sentence to 37 months and three weeks’ imprisonment.
3	Effrizan Kamisran v Public Prosecutor: Drug Rehabilitation, Prosecutorial Discretion, and Abuse of Process 05 Jul 2020 Public Prosecutor (Respondent)Won	05 Jul 2020	Public Prosecutor (Respondent): Appeal dismissedThe Public Prosecutor successfully defended the appeal.
4	Public Prosecutor v Soh Chee Wen: Litigation Privilege in Criminal Proceedings 29 Sep 2019 Public Prosecutor (Prosecution)Neutral	29 Sep 2019	Public Prosecutor (Prosecution): Ruling ClarifiedThe court clarified the scope of litigation privilege for the prosecution and the approach to cross-examination.
5	Salwant Singh v Public Prosecutor: Extension of Time to Reserve Questions of Law 02 May 2019 Public Prosecutor (Respondent)Won	02 May 2019	Public Prosecutor (Respondent): Application dismissedThe respondent successfully opposed the applicant's application for an extension of time.
6	Huang Ying-Chun v Public Prosecutor: Police Impersonation Scam & CDSA Sentencing 05 Dec 2018 Public Prosecutor (Respondent)Partial	05 Dec 2018	Public Prosecutor (Respondent): Appeal Dismissed in PartThe Public Prosecutor's original sentencing was partially dismissed as the appeal was allowed and the sentence was reduced.
7	CIFG v Polimet: Interpretation of Indemnity Clause in Convertible Bond Agreements 07 Feb 2017 Yeo Kar Peng (Third party)Neutral	07 Feb 2017	Yeo Kar Peng (Third party): Third party claim dismissedThe third party claim against Yeo Kar Peng is dismissed.