Tan Chai Ming Mark

Tan Chai Ming Mark is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2013 to 2024. The lawyer has handled 4 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 2 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in admiralty and maritime law and admiralty jurisdiction and arrest. Their track record shows a 50.0% success rate in resolved cases.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Tan Chai Ming Mark has demonstrated expertise across 29 primary practice areas, with significant experience in breach of contract and arbitration.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Breach of Contract	3 cases	7% of total caseload	Experienced62% relevance score	Tan Chai Ming Mark has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Arbitration	3 cases	7% of total caseload	General Practice17% relevance score	Tan Chai Ming Mark has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	3 cases	7% of total caseload	Experienced63% relevance score	Tan Chai Ming Mark has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Admiralty and Maritime Law	3 cases	7% of total caseload	Highly Specialized92% relevance score	Tan Chai Ming Mark has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	2 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	Tan Chai Ming Mark has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Admiralty Jurisdiction and Arrest	2 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Chai Ming Mark 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 Practice35% relevance score	Tan Chai Ming Mark has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	2 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	Tan Chai Ming Mark has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Shipping	2 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Chai Ming Mark has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Agency Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Tan Chai Ming Mark has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Remedies	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Tan Chai Ming Mark has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Practice and procedure of action in rem	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Tan Chai Ming Mark has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Duty of Care	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Tan Chai Ming Mark has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Damages	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Tan Chai Ming Mark has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Bills of Lading Act	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Chai Ming Mark has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Switch Bills of Lading	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Tan Chai Ming Mark has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Bailment	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Tan Chai Ming Mark has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Wrongful arrest	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Chai Ming Mark has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Shipping Disputes	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Tan Chai Ming Mark has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Warrant of arrest	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Tan Chai Ming Mark has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Effect of amendment of statement of claim on in rem writ and warrant of arrest	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Tan Chai Ming Mark has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Civil Litigation	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Tan Chai Ming Mark has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Negligence	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Tan Chai Ming Mark has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Personal Injury	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Tan Chai Ming Mark has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Property Damage	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Tan Chai Ming Mark has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Torts	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Tan Chai Ming Mark has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Trade Finance	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Tan Chai Ming Mark has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Criminal Procedure	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice5% relevance score	Tan Chai Ming Mark has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Formation of contract	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Tan Chai Ming Mark has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Tan Chai Ming Mark has been affiliated with 2 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 3 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Focus Law Asia LLC	3 cases	75% of cases	Jeil Crystal: BCGE v Jeil Intl - Switch Bills of Lading, Wrongful Arrest(Mar 2024) Jeil Crystal: Arrest Warrant Validity After Claim Amendment in Admiralty Law(Oct 2022) Banque Cantonale v Jeil Crystal: Admiralty Claim Amendment & Warrant of Arrest(Dec 2021)
Asia Practice LLP	1 cases	25% of cases	Rudhra Minerals v MRI Trading: Coal Contract Dispute over Agreement Formation(Sep 2013)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Tan Chai Ming Mark'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	25%
Partial	12.0 parties avg	2.0	25%
Won	22.0 parties avg	2.0	50%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2013	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2021	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 Chai Ming Mark's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

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

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	0.00	0.001 cases	1
USD	126,380.16	126,380.161 cases	1

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2013	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2021	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2022	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2024	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 4 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Jeil Crystal: BCGE v Jeil Intl - Switch Bills of Lading, Wrongful Arrest 14 Mar 2024 Owner of the vessel “Jeil Crystal” (Defendant)Partial	14 Mar 2024	Owner of the vessel “Jeil Crystal” (Defendant): Counterclaim Allowed in PartCounterclaim for wrongful arrest partially allowed; damages awarded in the amount of $126,380.16 (assumed USD, as the judgment refers to USD amounts and the defendant is an international company) and S$1,664.00.
2	Jeil Crystal: Arrest Warrant Validity After Claim Amendment in Admiralty Law 16 Oct 2022 Owner of the vessel JEIL CRYSTAL (IMO No. 9193587) (Appellant, Defendant)Won	16 Oct 2022	Owner of the vessel JEIL CRYSTAL (IMO No. 9193587) (Appellant, Defendant): Appeal AllowedAppeal allowed; warrant of arrest set aside; security to be returned to JIL; BCG to pay JIL costs of $35,000 (all-in) (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
3	Banque Cantonale v Jeil Crystal: Admiralty Claim Amendment & Warrant of Arrest 29 Dec 2021 Owner of the vessel “Jeil Crystal” (Defendant)Lost	29 Dec 2021	Owner of the vessel “Jeil Crystal” (Defendant): Application dismissedDefendant's application to set aside the Writ and WA 39 was dismissed.
4	Rudhra Minerals v MRI Trading: Coal Contract Dispute over Agreement Formation 24 Sep 2013 MRI Trading Pte Ltd (formerly known as CWT Integrated Services Pte Ltd) (Defendant)Won	24 Sep 2013	MRI Trading Pte Ltd (formerly known as CWT Integrated Services Pte Ltd) (Defendant): Judgment for DefendantThe court found in favor of the defendant, dismissing the plaintiff's claim.