Tan Ijin

Tan Ijin is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2007 to 2011. The lawyer has handled 4 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 3 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in arbitration and civil practice. Their track record shows a 50.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 3 complex cases, representing 75% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Tan Ijin has demonstrated expertise across 19 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and arbitration.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	2 cases	8% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	Tan Ijin has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Arbitration	2 cases	8% of total caseload	Highly Specialized83% relevance score	Tan Ijin has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	2 cases	8% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Tan Ijin has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	2 cases	8% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Tan Ijin has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	2 cases	8% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Tan Ijin has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Fiduciary Duties	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Tan Ijin has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Interim injunctions	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Tan Ijin has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Director's Duties	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Tan Ijin has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Defamation	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Tan Ijin has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Companies Act	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Tan Ijin has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Company Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Ijin has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Breach of Court Order	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Tan Ijin has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Derivative action	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Tan Ijin has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Appellate Practice	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Ijin has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Franchise Agreement	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Tan Ijin has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Asset Recovery	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Tan Ijin has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Civil Litigation	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Tan Ijin has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Corporate Governance	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Tan Ijin has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Corporate Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Ijin has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

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

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Drew & Napier LLC	2 cases	50% of cases	Go Go Delicacy v Carona Holdings: Stay of Proceedings & Arbitration Agreement(Sep 2007) Go Go Delicacy v Carona Holdings: Default Judgment & Arbitration Stay Application(Jun 2007)
Wong & Leow LLC	1 cases	25% of cases	Fong Wai Lyn Carolyn v Airtrust: Derivative Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty(Apr 2011)
Drew and Napier LLC	1 cases	25% of cases	Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party: Extension of Time for Appeal and Waiver of Security Deposit(Nov 2007)

Case Complexity Analysis

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

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 6.1
Complex Cases: 3 (75%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	16.0 parties avg	6.0	25%
Partial	13.0 parties avg	3.0	25%
Won	26.7 parties avg	6.7	50%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2007	36.4 parties avg	6.4
2011	13.0 parties avg	3.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Tan Ijin'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	0.002 cases	2

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2007	3 12	Lost: 1 cases (33.3%) Won: 2 cases (66.7%)
2011	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 4 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Fong Wai Lyn Carolyn v Airtrust: Derivative Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty 10 Apr 2011 Fong Wai Lyn Carolyn (Plaintiff, Applicant)Partial	10 Apr 2011	Fong Wai Lyn Carolyn (Plaintiff, Applicant): Leave to commence derivative proceedings granted in partLeave granted to commence derivative proceedings on claims related to KSCCI, Ribands, and Mega-Bond.
2	Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party: Extension of Time for Appeal and Waiver of Security Deposit 05 Nov 2007 Lee Hsien Loong (Plaintiff, Respondent)Won	05 Nov 2007	Lee Hsien Loong (Plaintiff, Respondent): Applications DismissedThe applications for extension of time to file appeals and waiver of security deposit were dismissed. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
3	Go Go Delicacy v Carona Holdings: Stay of Proceedings & Arbitration Agreement 27 Sep 2007 Lee Boon Hiok (Defendant)Won	27 Sep 2007	Lee Boon Hiok (Defendant): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed; the court found that a stay was impractical because not all defendants were party to the arbitration agreement. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
4	Go Go Delicacy v Carona Holdings: Default Judgment & Arbitration Stay Application 25 Jun 2007 Lee Boon Hiok (Defendant)Lost	25 Jun 2007	Lee Boon Hiok (Defendant): Judgment in default of defenceJudgment in default of defence entered against the defendant. The judgment does not specify a currency, so the currency of the jurisdiction (Singapore) is assumed.