Tan Tee Giam

Tan Tee Giam is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2000 to 2012. The lawyer has handled 4 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 4 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in misuse of drugs act and costs. They have managed 1 complex case, representing 25% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Tan Tee Giam has demonstrated expertise across 16 primary practice areas, with significant experience in misuse of drugs act and criminal law.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Misuse of Drugs Act	3 cases	14% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Tan Tee Giam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 14% of their total caseload.
Criminal Law	3 cases	14% of total caseload	Experienced68% relevance score	Tan Tee Giam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 14% of their total caseload.
Theft	2 cases	9% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Tan Tee Giam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 9% of their total caseload.
Criminal Procedure	2 cases	9% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	Tan Tee Giam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 9% of their total caseload.
Costs	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Tee Giam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Estoppel	1 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Tan Tee Giam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Functus Officio	1 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Tan Tee Giam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	1 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Tan Tee Giam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Judgments and Orders	1 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Tan Tee Giam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Defamation	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Tan Tee Giam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Evidence	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Tan Tee Giam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	1 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Tan Tee Giam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Company Law	1 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Tan Tee Giam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Fiduciary Duties	1 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Tan Tee Giam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Evidence Law	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Tan Tee Giam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Director's Duties	1 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Tan Tee Giam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Tan Tee Giam has been affiliated with 4 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 1 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Independent Practitioner	1 cases	25% of cases	PP v Abdul Salam: Trafficking, Misuse of Drugs Act, Common Intention(Sep 2000)
TanLim Partnership	1 cases	25% of cases	Low Leong Meng v Koh Poh Seng: Defamation Claim over Email & Costs Allocation(Jan 2012)
Lawrence Wong & Co	1 cases	25% of cases	Kum Mun Hou v Public Prosecutor: Trafficking of Diamorphine(May 2001)
Aw & Tan	1 cases	25% of cases	Suboh bin Ramli v Public Prosecutor: Trafficking in Diamorphine & Misuse of Drugs Act(Nov 2000)

Case Complexity Analysis

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

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 3.0
Complex Cases: 1 (25%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	43.0 parties avg	3.0	100%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2000	23.5 parties avg	3.5
2001	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2012	12.0 parties avg	2.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	4(100%)	100%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	0.00	0.001 cases	1

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2000	2 2	Lost: 2 cases (100.0%)
2001	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2012	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 4 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Low Leong Meng v Koh Poh Seng: Defamation Claim over Email & Costs Allocation 02 Jan 2012 Koh Poh Seng (Respondent)Lost	02 Jan 2012	Koh Poh Seng (Respondent): Costs of the trial to be paid to the AppellantThe District Judge’s order that each party was to bear his own costs of the trial is set aside. The Respondent is ordered to pay the Appellant’s costs of the trial. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
2	Kum Mun Hou v Public Prosecutor: Trafficking of Diamorphine 08 May 2001 Gue Huay Quee (Appellant)Lost	08 May 2001	Gue Huay Quee (Appellant): Appeal DismissedAppeal against conviction for drug trafficking was dismissed.
3	Suboh bin Ramli v Public Prosecutor: Trafficking in Diamorphine & Misuse of Drugs Act 15 Nov 2000 Wong Kok Loong (Appellant)Lost	15 Nov 2000	Wong Kok Loong (Appellant): Appeal DismissedWong's appeal against his conviction for drug trafficking was dismissed.
4	PP v Abdul Salam: Trafficking, Misuse of Drugs Act, Common Intention 06 Sep 2000 Wong Kok Loong (Defendant)Lost	06 Sep 2000	Wong Kok Loong (Defendant): ConvictedConvicted on an amended charge of delivery of 165.67 grams of diamorphine to Suboh.