Tan Jee Ming

Tan Jee Ming is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2001 to 2023. The lawyer has handled 6 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 4 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in national service offences and winding up. Their track record shows a 50.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 2 complex cases, representing 33% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Tan Jee Ming has demonstrated expertise across 33 primary practice areas, with significant experience in national service offences and contract law.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
National Service Offences	2 cases	6% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Tan Jee Ming has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	2 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Tan Jee Ming has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Criminal Law	2 cases	6% of total caseload	Experienced53% relevance score	Tan Jee Ming has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Construction Contracts	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Tan Jee Ming has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Family Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice25% relevance score	Tan Jee Ming has demonstrated general practice experiencein 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 Jee Ming has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Winding Up	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Tan Jee Ming has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Commercial Disputes	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Tan Jee Ming has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Evidence Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Tan Jee Ming has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Jurisdiction	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Jee Ming has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Disciplinary Proceedings	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Jee Ming has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Sentencing	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Tan Jee Ming has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Criminal Procedure	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Tan Jee Ming has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Assessment of Legal Costs	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Tan Jee Ming has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Extension of Time	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Tan Jee Ming has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Costs	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Tan Jee Ming has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Legal Profession Act	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Tan Jee Ming has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Trust Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Tan Jee Ming has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Tan Jee Ming has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Judgments and Orders	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Tan Jee Ming has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Statutory Interpretation	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Tan Jee Ming has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Company Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Tan Jee Ming has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Constructive Trust	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Tan Jee Ming has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Resulting Trust	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Tan Jee Ming has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Joint Account	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Tan Jee Ming has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Gifts	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice25% relevance score	Tan Jee Ming has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Quasi-partnership	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Tan Jee Ming has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Professional Conduct Rules	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Jee Ming has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Gross overcharging	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Tan Jee Ming has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Tan Jee Ming has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Computation of Time	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	Tan Jee Ming has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Civil Litigation	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Tan Jee Ming has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Tan Jee Ming has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Tan Jee Ming has been affiliated with 4 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 2 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Straits Law Practice LLC	2 cases	33% of cases	Public Prosecutor v Sakthikanesh: NS Default, Sentencing Benchmarks & Deterrence(Jul 2017) Seow Wei Sin v Public Prosecutor: Appeal Against Sentence for Enlistment Act Offence(Oct 2010)
Tan Jee Ming & Partners	2 cases	33% of cases	Law Society v Low Yong Sen: Show Cause Action for Gross Overcharging and Failure to Disclose Interest(Oct 2008) Re Sen Art Pte Ltd: Winding Up Petition Based on 'Just and Equitable Ground' Due to Irretrievable Breakdown Between Shareholders(Mar 2001)
Quahe Woo & Palmer LLC	1 cases	17% of cases	Chan Wei Meng v Chan Lai Wan Joyce: Dispute over Joint Account Asset Distribution(Oct 2023)
Ruth Chia & Co	1 cases	17% of cases	Downeredi Works v Holcim: Interpretation of Contractual Terms and Jurisdiction of High Court(Nov 2008)

Case Complexity Analysis

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

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 3.3
Complex Cases: 2 (33%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	14.0 parties avg	4.0	17%
Partial	12.0 parties avg	2.0	17%
Unknown	17.0 parties avg	7.0	17%
Won	32.0 parties avg	2.0	50%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2001	17.0 parties avg	7.0
2008	22.0 parties avg	2.0
2010	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2017	14.0 parties avg	4.0
2023	12.0 parties avg	2.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	1(17%)	17%
Partial	1(17%)	17%
Unknown	1(17%)	17%
Won	3(50%)	50%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	5,000.00	1,666.673 cases	3

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2001	1 1	Unknown: 1 cases (100.0%)
2008	2 11	Partial: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2010	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2017	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2023	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 6 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Chan Wei Meng v Chan Lai Wan Joyce: Dispute over Joint Account Asset Distribution 10 Oct 2023 Chan Lai Wan Joyce (Defendant)Won	10 Oct 2023	Chan Lai Wan Joyce (Defendant): Judgment for DefendantJudgment for the defendant; costs awarded (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
2	Public Prosecutor v Sakthikanesh: NS Default, Sentencing Benchmarks & Deterrence 23 Jul 2017 Vandana Kumar s/o Chidambaram (Respondent)Lost	23 Jul 2017	Vandana Kumar s/o Chidambaram (Respondent): Sentence EnhancedVandana's original sentence of a fine of $6,000 was set aside and substituted with an imprisonment term of seven weeks.
3	Seow Wei Sin v Public Prosecutor: Appeal Against Sentence for Enlistment Act Offence 24 Oct 2010 Seow Wei Sin (Appellant, Respondent)Won	24 Oct 2010	Seow Wei Sin (Appellant, Respondent): Appeal AllowedThe 18 months’ imprisonment term was substituted with a fine of $5,000 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
4	Downeredi Works v Holcim: Interpretation of Contractual Terms and Jurisdiction of High Court 10 Nov 2008 Holcim (Singapore) Pte Ltd (Defendant)Won	10 Nov 2008	Holcim (Singapore) Pte Ltd (Defendant): Judgment for DefendantJudgment in favour of the defendant. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
5	Law Society v Low Yong Sen: Show Cause Action for Gross Overcharging and Failure to Disclose Interest 07 Oct 2008 Law Society of Singapore (Applicant)Partial	07 Oct 2008	Law Society of Singapore (Applicant): Show cause action successful in partThe Law Society's application was successful in part, with the respondent found guilty of the first charge (gross overcharging) but not the fourth charge (failure to disclose interest). The respondent was suspended from practice for six months.
6	Re Sen Art Pte Ltd: Winding Up Petition Based on 'Just and Equitable Ground' Due to Irretrievable Breakdown Between Shareholders 01 Mar 2001 Contrac-Image Trading Pte Ltd (Other)	01 Mar 2001	Contrac-Image Trading Pte Ltd (Other): -