Tan Teck Hian Wilson

Tan Teck Hian Wilson is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2018 to 2020. The lawyer has handled 3 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 1 law firm. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in negligence and misrepresentation. Their track record shows a 33.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 2 complex cases, representing 67% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Tan Teck Hian Wilson has demonstrated expertise across 20 primary practice areas, with significant experience in agency law and vicarious liability.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Agency Law	2 cases	8% of total caseload	General Practice35% relevance score	Tan Teck Hian Wilson has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Vicarious liability	2 cases	8% of total caseload	Experienced63% relevance score	Tan Teck Hian Wilson has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Negligence	2 cases	8% of total caseload	Highly Specialized83% relevance score	Tan Teck Hian Wilson has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Banking and Finance	2 cases	8% of total caseload	General Practice18% relevance score	Tan Teck Hian Wilson has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Misrepresentation	2 cases	8% of total caseload	Highly Specialized88% relevance score	Tan Teck Hian Wilson has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Limitation	2 cases	8% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Teck Hian Wilson has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Sentencing	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Tan Teck Hian Wilson has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Criminal Procedure	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Tan Teck Hian Wilson has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Road Traffic Act	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Tan Teck Hian Wilson has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Financial Advisory	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Teck Hian Wilson has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Tan Teck Hian Wilson has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Tan Teck Hian Wilson has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Appeal	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Teck Hian Wilson has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Automobile Accidents	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Tan Teck Hian Wilson has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Voluntary Intoxication	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Tan Teck Hian Wilson has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Tan Teck Hian Wilson has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Criminal Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Tan Teck Hian Wilson has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Personal Injury	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Tan Teck Hian Wilson has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Theft	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Tan Teck Hian Wilson has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Torts	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Teck Hian Wilson 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 Teck Hian Wilson has been affiliated with 1 law firm. The most active affiliation involves 3 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
WNLEX LLC	3 cases	100% of cases	IPP Financial Advisers v Saimee: Negligent Misrepresentation, Limitation & Vicarious Liability(May 2020) Saimee Bin Jumaat v IPP Financial Advisers: Negligence, Misrepresentation, and Vicarious Liability in Investment Advice(Jul 2019) Public Prosecutor v Lim Chee Yin Jordon: Appeal Against Probation Order for Theft and Rash Driving(Feb 2018)

Case Complexity Analysis

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

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 3.6
Complex Cases: 2 (67%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	23.3 parties avg	3.3	67%
Won	14.0 parties avg	4.0	33%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2018	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2019	14.0 parties avg	4.0
2020	14.0 parties avg	4.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Tan Teck Hian Wilson's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	2(67%)	67%
Won	1(33%)	33%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
USD	1,241,800.00	1,241,800.001 cases	1

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2018	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2019	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2020	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 3 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	IPP Financial Advisers v Saimee: Negligent Misrepresentation, Limitation & Vicarious Liability 12 May 2020 Quek Miaw Sian Alice (Appellant)Won	12 May 2020	Quek Miaw Sian Alice (Appellant): Appeal AllowedSaimee’s claims against the appellants are time-barred and must therefore fail.
2	Saimee Bin Jumaat v IPP Financial Advisers: Negligence, Misrepresentation, and Vicarious Liability in Investment Advice 03 Jul 2019 Quek Miaw Sian Alice (Defendant)Lost	03 Jul 2019	Quek Miaw Sian Alice (Defendant): Liable for NegligenceMoi and Quek are jointly and severally liable to compensate Saimee the sum of USD$620,900 under the tort of negligence for their negligent misrepresentations (assumed USD, as the judgment specifies USD amounts).
3	Public Prosecutor v Lim Chee Yin Jordon: Appeal Against Probation Order for Theft and Rash Driving 28 Feb 2018 Lim Chee Yin Jordon (Respondent)Lost	28 Feb 2018	Lim Chee Yin Jordon (Respondent): Probation Order Set AsideThe probation order imposed by the District Judge was set aside, and the Respondent was sentenced to imprisonment.