Tan Eu Shan Kevin

Tan Eu Shan Kevin is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2014 to 2022. The lawyer has handled 4 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 2 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in fraud and deceit and conspiracy by unlawful means. Their track record shows a 75.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 2 complex cases, representing 50% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Tan Eu Shan Kevin has demonstrated expertise across 26 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and judicial review.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	3 cases	10% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Tan Eu Shan Kevin has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 10% of their total caseload.
Judicial Review	2 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced73% relevance score	Tan Eu Shan Kevin has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Fraud and Deceit	2 cases	6% of total caseload	Highly Specialized78% relevance score	Tan Eu Shan Kevin has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	2 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Tan Eu Shan Kevin has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Criminal Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Tan Eu Shan Kevin has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Criminal Revision	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Tan Eu Shan Kevin has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Property Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Tan Eu Shan Kevin has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Fiduciary Duties	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Tan Eu Shan Kevin has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Commercial Disputes	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Tan Eu Shan Kevin has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Conspiracy by Unlawful Means	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Tan Eu Shan Kevin has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Jurisdiction	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Tan Eu Shan Kevin has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Misuse of Drugs Act	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Tan Eu Shan Kevin has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Unjust Enrichment	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Tan Eu Shan Kevin has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Criminal Procedure	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Tan Eu Shan Kevin has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Failure of consideration	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Tan Eu Shan Kevin has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Estoppel	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Tan Eu Shan Kevin has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Trust Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Tan Eu Shan Kevin has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Tan Eu Shan Kevin 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	General Practice20% relevance score	Tan Eu Shan Kevin has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Conflict of Laws	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Eu Shan Kevin has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Criminal Procedure and Sentencing	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	Tan Eu Shan Kevin has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Match-fixing	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Tan Eu Shan Kevin has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Rule of Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Tan Eu Shan Kevin has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Tan Eu Shan Kevin has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Commercial Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Tan Eu Shan Kevin has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Constitutional Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Tan Eu Shan Kevin has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Tan Eu Shan Kevin has been affiliated with 2 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 2 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Attorney-General’s Chambers	2 cases	50% of cases	Tan Seet Eng v Attorney-General: Review of Detention Order & Limits of Executive Power under Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act(Nov 2015) Zheng Jianxing v Attorney-General: Quashing Order Application for DRC Admission under Misuse of Drugs Act(Jun 2014)
Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP	2 cases	50% of cases	Maroju v Epoch Minerals: Conspiracy & Failure of Consideration(Oct 2022) Chen Yun Hian Christopher v BHNV Online Ltd: Conflict of Laws & Jurisdiction in Fraud Claim(Dec 2020)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Tan Eu Shan Kevin's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 4.0
Complex Cases: 2 (50%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	12.0 parties avg	2.0	25%
Won	34.7 parties avg	4.7	75%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2014	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2015	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2020	17.0 parties avg	7.0
2022	15.0 parties avg	5.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Tan Eu Shan Kevin's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	1(25%)	25%
Won	3(75%)	75%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	40,000.00	10,000.004 cases	4

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2014	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2015	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2020	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2022	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 4 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Maroju v Epoch Minerals: Conspiracy & Failure of Consideration 11 Oct 2022 Epoch Minerals Pte Ltd (Respondent, Plaintiff)Won	11 Oct 2022	Epoch Minerals Pte Ltd (Respondent, Plaintiff): Judgment for RespondentAppeal dismissed with costs fixed at $40,000 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
2	Chen Yun Hian Christopher v BHNV Online Ltd: Conflict of Laws & Jurisdiction in Fraud Claim 30 Dec 2020 Gilad Tisona (Defendant)Won	30 Dec 2020	Gilad Tisona (Defendant): Application GrantedDefendant's application granted; court declared it lacked jurisdiction over the defendant (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
3	Tan Seet Eng v Attorney-General: Review of Detention Order & Limits of Executive Power under Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act 24 Nov 2015 Attorney-General (Respondent)Lost	24 Nov 2015	Attorney-General (Respondent): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed; the conclusion we have reached makes it unnecessary for us to deal with two other grounds of challenge raised by the Appellant, namely, irrationality and procedural irregularity. It follows that the Appellant should be freed and the costs order made against him below should be set aside. We will hear the parties on any other issues that remain outstanding, including the question of costs. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
4	Zheng Jianxing v Attorney-General: Quashing Order Application for DRC Admission under Misuse of Drugs Act 25 Jun 2014 Attorney-General (Respondent)Won	25 Jun 2014	Attorney-General (Respondent): Application dismissedThe Attorney-General successfully opposed the application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings. No order as to costs was made.