Tan Hee Joek

Tan Hee Joek is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2000 to 2023. The lawyer has handled 22 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 4 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in criminal law and sentencing. Their track record shows a 26.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 3 complex cases, representing 14% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated expertise across 73 primary practice areas, with significant experience in property law and criminal law.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Property Law	9 cases	7% of total caseload	Experienced67% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 9 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Criminal Law	6 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized78% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 6 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	6 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice49% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 6 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Sentencing	5 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized82% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 5 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Criminal Procedure	4 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized76% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Revenue Law	4 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized91% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	4 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced52% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Evidence	4 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced56% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	4 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice28% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 4 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Statutory Interpretation	3 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Personal Injury	3 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Trust Law	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized83% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Criminal Revision	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Property Tax	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized78% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Employment Law	2 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced66% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Eminent Domain	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Road Traffic Act	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Penal Code	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized83% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Litigation	2 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice37% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Land Law	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized83% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Misrepresentation	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced64% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Guarantee	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Company Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Will Interpretation	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Professional Negligence	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Interpleader	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Beneficial Ownership	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Sentencing Principles	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Abetment by conspiracy	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Cheating	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Equity	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Mortgage Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Annual Value	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Construction of statute	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Purposive approach	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Discovery Obligations	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Conveyancing Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Financial Products	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Intoxication	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Electricity Act	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Banking	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice35% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Purchase Money Resulting Trust	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Trust for Sale	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Taxi Services	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Safe system of work	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Annual Value Assessment	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Self Defence	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Pointe Gourde principle	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Compensation Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Commercial Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Land Acquisition	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Negligence	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Outrage of Modesty	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Theft	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Torts	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Traffic Violations	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Wills and Probate	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Work Injury Compensation	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Commercial Disputes	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice5% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Fraud and Deceit	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Evidence Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Receivership	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Statutory offences	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Misuse of Drugs Act	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Overcharging	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Culpable Homicide	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Costs	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice25% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Discovery of documents	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Estoppel	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice15% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Murder	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Remedies	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Tan Hee Joek has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Tan Hee Joek has been affiliated with 4 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 14 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Tan See Swan & Co.	14 cases	64% of cases	Public Prosecutor v Loh Cheok San: Abetment by Conspiracy and Cheating(Jul 2023) Micro Tellers Network v Cheng Yi Han: Deceit Claim over Misappropriated Funds(Sep 2021) Teo Seng Tiong v Public Prosecutor: Sentencing & Compounding of Road Traffic Offences(Jun 2021)
Drew & Napier LLC	4 cases	18% of cases	Tan Hee Liang v Chief Assessor: Property Tax, Annual Value & Sinking Fund Exclusion(Oct 2008) Alliance Management SA v Pendleton Lane P: Striking Out Defence for Non-Compliance with Discovery Orders(Jun 2008) Tan Hee Liang v Chief Assessor: Property Tax Assessment & Annual Value(Dec 2007)
Attorney-General’s Chambers	2 cases	9% of cases	Public Prosecutor v Jin Yugang: Murder, Intoxication Defence, Penal Code Section 300 Exceptions(Feb 2003) Phang Fook Seng v Attorney-General of Singapore: Claim for Damages Due to Injury During National Service(May 2000)
State Counsel	2 cases	9% of cases	Ng Boo Tan v Collector of Land Revenue: Compulsory Land Acquisition & Compensation(Jul 2002) Collector of Land Revenue v Mustaq Ahmad: Land Acquisition Compensation & Provisional Development Permission(Mar 2002)

Case Complexity Analysis

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

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 3.2
Complex Cases: 3 (14%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	113.4 parties avg	3.4	50%
Neutral	14.0 parties avg	4.0	5%
Partial	52.8 parties avg	2.8	23%
Won	62.7 parties avg	2.7	27%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2000	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2002	22.0 parties avg	2.0
2003	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2007	23.0 parties avg	3.0
2008	23.0 parties avg	3.0
2010	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2011	15.0 parties avg	5.0
2012	44.5 parties avg	4.5
2013	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2017	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2019	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2020	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2021	32.7 parties avg	2.7
2023	12.0 parties avg	2.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	11(48%)	48%
Neutral	1(4%)	4%
Partial	5(22%)	22%
Won	6(26%)	26%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	45,000.00	5,000.009 cases	9

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2000	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2002	2 2	Won: 2 cases (100.0%)
2003	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2007	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Partial: 1 cases (50.0%)
2008	2 11	Partial: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2010	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2011	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2012	5 212	Lost: 2 cases (40.0%) Neutral: 1 cases (20.0%) Partial: 2 cases (40.0%)
2013	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2017	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2019	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)
2020	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2021	3 3	Lost: 3 cases (100.0%)
2023	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 22 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Public Prosecutor v Loh Cheok San: Abetment by Conspiracy and Cheating 12 Jul 2023 Loh Cheok San (Respondent)Lost	12 Jul 2023	Loh Cheok San (Respondent): Sentence EnhancedThe respondent's sentence was enhanced from 65 months to 80 months.
2	Micro Tellers Network v Cheng Yi Han: Deceit Claim over Misappropriated Funds 21 Sep 2021 Then Feng (Defendant)Lost	21 Sep 2021	Then Feng (Defendant): Judgment against DefendantJudgment against the Defendant on the deceit claim; damages to be assessed. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
3	Teo Seng Tiong v Public Prosecutor: Sentencing & Compounding of Road Traffic Offences 30 Jun 2021 Teo Seng Tiong (Applicant)Lost	30 Jun 2021	Teo Seng Tiong (Applicant): Appeal DismissedThe Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the original sentence.
4	Skyventure VWT v Chief Assessor: Property Tax Exemption & Statutory Interpretation 20 Apr 2021 Skyventure VWT Singapore Pte Ltd (Appellant, Respondent)Lost	20 Apr 2021	Skyventure VWT Singapore Pte Ltd (Appellant, Respondent): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed with costs of $35,000 awarded to the respondents (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
5	Chief Assessor v Skyventure: Property Tax Assessment of iFly Singapore's Wind Tunnel 15 Jan 2020 Skyventure VWT Singapore Pte Ltd (Respondent)Lost	15 Jan 2020	Skyventure VWT Singapore Pte Ltd (Respondent): Appeal DismissedThe appeal against the property tax assessment was allowed, meaning the wind tunnel is not exempt from property tax.
6	GCO v Public Prosecutor: Appeal Against Sentence for Outrage of Modesty and Insulting Modesty 12 Feb 2019 GCO (Appellant)Partial	12 Feb 2019	GCO (Appellant): Appeal allowed in partAppeal allowed in part; caning sentence set aside for the OM offence, and imprisonment sentence substituted with a fine for the s 509 offence (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
7	Muhammad Nur bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor: Breach of Probation and Reformative Training Eligibility 27 Nov 2017 Muhammad Nur bin Abdullah (Applicant)Lost	27 Nov 2017	Muhammad Nur bin Abdullah (Applicant): Appeal DismissedThe applicant's appeal was dismissed as the court found him ineligible for reformative training.
8	Kee Yau Chong v S H Interdeco: Work Injury Compensation for Workplace Assault 22 Oct 2013 Kee Yau Chong (Appellant)Won	22 Oct 2013	Kee Yau Chong (Appellant): Appeal AllowedAppeal allowed; employer's liability established. No order as to costs was made, save that the Defendant was to pay reasonable disbursements. The currency is assumed to be SGD, the currency of Singapore.
9	Public Prosecutor v Fonda Global Engineering: Electricity Act Violation & Contractor Liability 29 Oct 2012 Public Prosecutor (Appellant)Lost	29 Oct 2012	Public Prosecutor (Appellant): Appeal DismissedThe Public Prosecutor's appeal against the sentence was dismissed.
10	Lee Chang-Rung v Leonard Loo LLP: Negligence, Breach of Contract & Lost Chance in Structured Product Misrepresentation Claim 28 Aug 2012 Lee Sung-Rong (Plaintiff)Lost	28 Aug 2012	Lee Sung-Rong (Plaintiff): Claim DismissedThe plaintiff's claim for damages under Part C of the Statement of Claim for the loss of a chance was dismissed.
11	Chan Ah Beng v Liang and Sons: Specific Performance & Breach of Contract 28 Jun 2012 Liang and Sons Holdings (S) Pte Ltd (Respondent)Partial	28 Jun 2012	Liang and Sons Holdings (S) Pte Ltd (Respondent): Damages by an account of rental not awardedThe Respondent is entitled to interest for late completion pursuant to Condition 8.2 of the Conditions of Sale for the period from 19 November 2010 to 26 July 2011. The Judge ought not to have awarded the Respondent damages (by an account of rent) pursuant to Clause 6 of the Option, in addition to interest pursuant to Condition 8.2.
12	UOB v Giok Bie Jao: Resulting Trust, Property Ownership & Balance Sale Proceeds Dispute 15 Mar 2012 Jimmy Jonathan (Respondent)Partial	15 Mar 2012	Jimmy Jonathan (Respondent): PartialJimmy Jonathan was declared to have a 5% beneficial interest in Ocean Park and was ordered to pay 95% of Jaury's costs.
13	Foo Jee Seng v Foo Jhee Tuang: Trust for Sale, Trustee Discretion, and Will Construction 27 Oct 2011 Foo Jhee Tuang (Defendant)Won	27 Oct 2011	Foo Jhee Tuang (Defendant): Application DismissedThe application to compel the sale of the property was dismissed.
14	Lee Ngiap Han v Public Prosecutor: Taxi Driver Conviction for Overcharging and Taximeter Violation 28 Oct 2010 Lee Ngiap Han (Appellant)Lost	28 Oct 2010	Lee Ngiap Han (Appellant): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed; original conviction and fines upheld.
15	Tan Hee Liang v Chief Assessor: Property Tax, Annual Value & Sinking Fund Exclusion 27 Oct 2008 Tan Hee Liang (Appellant)Partial	27 Oct 2008	Tan Hee Liang (Appellant): Appeal dismissed in partAppeal dismissed with regard to the special levy, but the issue relating to the sinking fund was remitted back to the Chief Assessor for determination.
16	Alliance Management SA v Pendleton Lane P: Striking Out Defence for Non-Compliance with Discovery Orders 02 Jun 2008 Alliance Management SA (Plaintiff)Won	02 Jun 2008	Alliance Management SA (Plaintiff): Interlocutory judgment for the plaintiffInterlocutory judgment entered for the plaintiff with damages to be assessed. The judgment does not specify a currency, so the currency of the jurisdiction (Singapore) is assumed.
17	Tan Hee Liang v Chief Assessor: Property Tax Assessment & Annual Value 04 Dec 2007 Tan Hee Liang (Appellant)Lost	04 Dec 2007	Tan Hee Liang (Appellant): Appeal dismissedAppeal dismissed with costs. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
18	Alliance Management SA v Pendleton Lane P: Discovery, Production of Documents & Inspection 21 Aug 2007 Alliance Management SA (Plaintiff)Partial	21 Aug 2007	Alliance Management SA (Plaintiff): Appeal Dismissed for the most partAppeal dismissed for the most part and costs fixed at $10,000 with disbursements to be taxed, if parties were unable to agree on the quantum of disbursements. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
19	Public Prosecutor v Jin Yugang: Murder, Intoxication Defence, Penal Code Section 300 Exceptions 23 Feb 2003 Public Prosecutor (Prosecution)Won	23 Feb 2003	Public Prosecutor (Prosecution): Judgment for ProsecutionAccused found guilty of murder.
20	Ng Boo Tan v Collector of Land Revenue: Compulsory Land Acquisition & Compensation 30 Jul 2002 Collector of Land Revenue (Respondent)Won	30 Jul 2002	Collector of Land Revenue (Respondent): Judgment for RespondentJudgment for the Respondent; no monetary amount specified. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
21	Collector of Land Revenue v Mustaq Ahmad: Land Acquisition Compensation & Provisional Development Permission 05 Mar 2002 Collector of Land Revenue (Appellant)Won	05 Mar 2002	Collector of Land Revenue (Appellant): Appeal AllowedAppeal allowed with costs.
22	Phang Fook Seng v Attorney-General of Singapore: Claim for Damages Due to Injury During National Service 29 May 2000 Attorney-General of Singapore (Respondent, Defendant)Lost	29 May 2000	Attorney-General of Singapore (Respondent, Defendant): Claim Struck Out (Reversed on Appeal)The assistant registrar struck out the plaintiff’s claim, but this order was reversed on appeal.