Tan Tee Jim

Tan Tee Jim is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2000 to 2024. The lawyer has handled 39 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 7 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in trademarks and passing off. Their track record shows a 37.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 7 complex cases, representing 18% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated expertise across 104 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and trademarks.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	29 cases	11% of total caseload	General Practice38% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 29 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.
Trademarks	17 cases	7% of total caseload	Highly Specialized81% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 17 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	13 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced52% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 13 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Passing Off	10 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized91% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 10 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Commercial Law	9 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice34% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 9 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Corporate Law	8 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice32% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 8 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Copyrights	8 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 8 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	8 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice49% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 8 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Company Law	7 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice43% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 7 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Trademark Infringement	5 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 5 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	4 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice9% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 4 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Business Law	3 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice38% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Civil Litigation	3 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice47% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	3 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized77% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Torts	3 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced72% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Injunctions	3 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Fiduciary Duties	3 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Commercial Disputes	3 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice25% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Misrepresentation	3 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced67% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Jurisdiction	3 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced62% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Arbitration	3 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice23% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Formation of contract	3 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Costs	3 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Bankruptcy	3 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced52% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Employment Law	3 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Estoppel	3 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice28% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Trade names	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Banking and Finance	2 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice43% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Contractual Interpretation	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Summary Judgement	2 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice35% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized93% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Companies Act	2 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice47% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Winding Up	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Litigation	2 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice33% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Legal Profession Act	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized93% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Property Law	2 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Intellectual Property Law	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Well Known Trade Marks	2 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Groundless threats of infringement proceedings	2 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Commercial Litigation	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Agency Law	2 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice15% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Patents	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized93% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Construction Defects	2 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Contracts	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Innocent Misrepresentation	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice5% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Interim Injunction	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Professional Conduct Rules	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Offer and Acceptance	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Service of document	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Patent Infringement	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Solicitors' Accounts Rules	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Legal Ethics	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Reopening of transactions	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Novelty	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Inventive step	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Exhaustion of Rights	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Societies Law	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice15% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Marine Industry	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Implied Consent	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Sufficiency of Disclosure	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Registered Design	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Advertising and Marketing	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Appellate Practice	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Banking Law	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Commercial Leasing	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Commercial Real Estate	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Corporate Litigation	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Credit and Security	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Judicial Management	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Real Estate	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Shareholder Disputes	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Insolvency Law	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Fraud and Deceit	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Breach of Confidence	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Disciplinary Proceedings	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Contractual terms	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Unjust Enrichment	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Assessment of Legal Costs	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Director's Duties	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
International Commercial Law	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Breach of Duty	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Duty of Candour	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Money and moneylenders	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Breach of Trust	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Judgments and Orders	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Defamation	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Damages	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Statutory Interpretation	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Restraint of Trade	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Liquidation	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Evidence	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Duty to Account	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Professional Misconduct	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Conflict of Laws	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Acquiescence	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice35% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Performance of Contract	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Rules of court	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Non-compliance	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Escrow Agreements	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Professional Ethics	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Licensing	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Standing to Sue	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Breach of Solicitors' Accounts Rules	1 cases	0% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.
Mentally disordered offenders	1 cases	0% of total caseload	General Practice1% relevance score	Tan Tee Jim has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 0% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Tan Tee Jim has been affiliated with 7 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 29 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Lee & Lee	29 cases	74% of cases	Tiger Pictures v Encore Films: Copyright Infringement & Contract Formation Dispute over 'Moon Man' Film(Feb 2024) Tiger Pictures v Encore Films: Copyright Infringement & Exclusive Licensing Dispute(Sep 2023) Allianz Capital Partners GmbH v Goh Andress: Extended Fiona Trust Principle & Jurisdiction Clauses(May 2023)
Allen & Gledhill	4 cases	10% of cases	Bee Cheng Hiang v Fragrance: Copyright Infringement, Fair Dealing & Trademark Act Defence(Oct 2002) Fragrance Foodstuff v Bee Cheng Hiang: Copyright & Trademark Infringement Dispute(Jul 2002) Genelabs v Institut Pasteur: HIV-2 Patent Validity & Infringement(Nov 2000)
Allen and Gledhill	2 cases	5% of cases	McDonald's Corp v Future Enterprises: Trade Mark Registration Dispute(Nov 2004) McDonald's v Future Enterprises: Trade Mark Registration & Likelihood of Confusion(Apr 2004)
Wendy Wong & Partners	1 cases	3% of cases	Yunnan Baiyao v Tong Jum Chew: Passing Off & Goodwill in Herbal Drug Trade(Oct 2002)
Sim Law Practice LLC	1 cases	3% of cases	Abdul Rashid v Hii Yii Ann: Forum Non Conveniens & Breach of Settlement Agreement(Oct 2014)
Khor Thiam Beng & Partners	1 cases	3% of cases	Pan-West v Grand Bigwin: Trade Mark Infringement & Passing Off of KATANA Golf Clubs(Oct 2003)
KhattarWong	1 cases	3% of cases	Asia Pacific Publishing v Pioneers & Leaders: Copyright Infringement and Passing Off Dispute(Jul 2011)

Case Complexity Analysis

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

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 3.7
Complex Cases: 7 (18%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Dismissed	26.0 parties avg	6.0	5%
Lost	172.8 parties avg	2.8	44%
Partial	64.8 parties avg	4.8	15%
Unknown	16.0 parties avg	6.0	3%
Won	153.5 parties avg	3.5	38%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2000	23.0 parties avg	3.0
2002	32.5 parties avg	2.5
2003	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2004	22.0 parties avg	2.0
2006	42.0 parties avg	2.0
2007	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2008	22.5 parties avg	2.5
2009	43.2 parties avg	3.2
2011	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2012	42.8 parties avg	2.8
2013	23.0 parties avg	3.0
2014	22.0 parties avg	2.0
2017	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2018	46.9 parties avg	6.9
2021	26.0 parties avg	6.0
2022	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2023	22.0 parties avg	2.0
2024	12.0 parties avg	2.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Dismissed	2(5%)	5%
Lost	17(41%)	41%
Partial	6(15%)	15%
Unknown	1(2%)	2%
Won	15(37%)	37%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	1,001,180.00	37,080.7427 cases	27
USD	18,018,000.00	18,018,000.001 cases	1

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2000	2 2	Lost: 2 cases (100.0%)
2002	3 12	Lost: 1 cases (33.3%) Won: 2 cases (66.7%)
2003	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2004	2 2	Won: 2 cases (100.0%)
2006	4 22	Lost: 2 cases (50.0%) Won: 2 cases (50.0%)
2007	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2008	2 11	Partial: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2009	5 122	Dismissed: 1 cases (20.0%) Lost: 2 cases (40.0%) Won: 2 cases (40.0%)
2011	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2012	4 211	Lost: 2 cases (50.0%) Partial: 1 cases (25.0%) Won: 1 cases (25.0%)
2013	2 2	Partial: 2 cases (100.0%)
2014	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2017	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)
2018	5 1112	Dismissed: 1 cases (20.0%) Lost: 1 cases (20.0%) Partial: 1 cases (20.0%) Won: 2 cases (40.0%)
2021	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Unknown: 1 cases (50.0%)
2022	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2023	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2024	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 39 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Tiger Pictures v Encore Films: Copyright Infringement & Contract Formation Dispute over 'Moon Man' Film 08 Feb 2024 Encore Films Pte Ltd (Defendant, Claimant in Counterclaim)Lost	08 Feb 2024	Encore Films Pte Ltd (Defendant, Claimant in Counterclaim): Claim dismissedThe court dismissed the defendant's claim.
2	Tiger Pictures v Encore Films: Copyright Infringement & Exclusive Licensing Dispute 10 Sep 2023 Encore Films Pte Ltd (Defendant)Lost	10 Sep 2023	Encore Films Pte Ltd (Defendant): Striking out application dismissedThe defendant's application to strike out the claim was dismissed.
3	Allianz Capital Partners GmbH v Goh Andress: Extended Fiona Trust Principle & Jurisdiction Clauses 07 May 2023 Allianz Capital Partners GmbH, Singapore Branch (Appellant, Plaintiff)Won	07 May 2023	Allianz Capital Partners GmbH, Singapore Branch (Appellant, Plaintiff): Appeal AllowedAppeal allowed, setting aside the Judge’s order below in HC/OS 1215/2021 granting a stay of the proceedings. Costs awarded to the Appellant. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
4	Siong Ann Engineering v Pure Group: Contract Formation Dispute over Ramp Works 03 Apr 2022 Siong Ann Engineering Pte Ltd (Appellant)Won	03 Apr 2022	Siong Ann Engineering Pte Ltd (Appellant): Appeal AllowedAppeal allowed; the respondent is ordered to pay the appellant $130,180.00 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
5	Yihua Lifestyle v HTL International: Judicial Management & Discretion of Judicial Managers 07 Sep 2021 Ideal Homes International Limited (Appellant)Lost	07 Sep 2021	Ideal Homes International Limited (Appellant): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed with costs. The judgment does not specify a currency, so SGD is assumed as the jurisdiction is Singapore.
6	Golden Hill Capital v Yihua Lifestyle: Appeal on Judicial Management & Asset Sale 29 Aug 2021 Ideal Homes International Limited (Respondent)	29 Aug 2021	Ideal Homes International Limited (Respondent): -
7	Evan Lim v MWA Capital: Reopening Loan Transactions under Moneylenders Act 12 Nov 2018 Evan Lim Industrial / Warehousing Development Pte Ltd (Appellant)Lost	12 Nov 2018	Evan Lim Industrial / Warehousing Development Pte Ltd (Appellant): Appeal dismissedAppeal against the High Court's decision was dismissed. Costs of the appeal fixed at $38,000 (inclusive of disbursements) in favour of each of the respondents. Costs of the Liquidators’ joinder application fixed at $10,000 and $2,000 (both inclusive of disbursements) in favour of the Liquidators and MWA respectively. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
8	Long Well Group v Commerzbank: Costs Dispute After Breach of Contract Claim 22 Jul 2018 Private Energy Pte Ltd (Plaintiff)Won	22 Jul 2018	Private Energy Pte Ltd (Plaintiff): Costs awarded against 3rd defendantCosts to be paid by the 3rd defendant to the plaintiffs fixed at $200,000 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
9	Long Well Group v Commerzbank: Breach of Contract, Misrepresentation & Fiduciary Duty Claims 15 Mar 2018 First Power International Limited (Plaintiff)Dismissed	15 Mar 2018	First Power International Limited (Plaintiff): Claim dismissedThe other sums claimed for, such as the PEPL Share Purchase Sum and PEPL Advance Payments have not been shown to be losses incurred by the plaintiffs as a result of CAMA and CAB’s failure to transfer the ownership of CAE to the plaintiffs.
10	Law Society v Gurdaib Singh: Disciplinary Proceedings for Breach of Escrow Agreement and Solicitors' Accounts Rules 26 Feb 2018 The Law Society of Singapore (Applicant)Won	26 Feb 2018	The Law Society of Singapore (Applicant): Judgment for the ApplicantCosts of the proceedings fixed at $6,000 awarded to the Law Society. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
11	National University Hospital v Cicada Cube: Patent Ownership Dispute over Laboratory Specimen Collection System 13 Mar 2017 National University Hospital (Singapore) Pte Ltd (Plaintiff)Partial	13 Mar 2017	National University Hospital (Singapore) Pte Ltd (Plaintiff): Partial JudgmentNUH was named as a joint proprietor of the Patent together with Cicada.
12	Abdul Rashid v Hii Yii Ann: Forum Non Conveniens & Breach of Settlement Agreement 02 Oct 2014 Hii Yii Ann (Defendant, Appellant)Lost	02 Oct 2014	Hii Yii Ann (Defendant, Appellant): Appeal DismissedDefendant's appeal against the decision to dismiss his stay application was dismissed with costs.
13	Lek Gwee Noi v Humming Flowers: Restrictive Covenant, Non-Competition, and Non-Solicitation 07 Apr 2014 Lek Gwee Noi (Plaintiff, Appellant)Won	07 Apr 2014	Lek Gwee Noi (Plaintiff, Appellant): Appeal AllowedAppeal allowed with costs to the plaintiff. The judgment does not specify a currency, assuming SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
14	Law Society v Udeh Kumar: Solicitor's Duty, Conflict of Interest & Communication with Client 27 Jun 2013 Law Society of Singapore (Applicant)Partial	27 Jun 2013	Law Society of Singapore (Applicant): Partial SuccessThe Law Society succeeded in two of the three charges against the Respondent.
15	Singapore Professional Golfers’ Association v Chen Eng Waye: Passing Off & Trademark Infringement 19 Feb 2013 The Singapore Professional Golfers' Association (Appellant)Partial	19 Feb 2013	The Singapore Professional Golfers' Association (Appellant): Appeal Allowed in PartAppeal allowed with costs against the 1st Respondent and 3rd Respondents. The Appellant is also to have its costs below against the 1st and 3rd Respondents. (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore)
16	Sarika v Ferrero: Trade Mark Infringement & Passing Off Dispute 15 Oct 2012 Sarika Connoisseur Cafe Pte Ltd (Appellant)Lost	15 Oct 2012	Sarika Connoisseur Cafe Pte Ltd (Appellant): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed; Sarika Connoisseur Cafe Pte Ltd lost the appeal. The judgment does not specify a currency, so the currency of the jurisdiction (Singapore) is assumed.
17	PH Hydraulics v Intrepid Offshore: Copyright Infringement, Breach of Confidence, and Non-Competition Clause Dispute 26 Jun 2012 PH Hydraulics & Engineering Pte Ltd (Plaintiff)Partial	26 Jun 2012	PH Hydraulics & Engineering Pte Ltd (Plaintiff): Judgment for Plaintiff in partJudgment for Plaintiff in part; statutory damages awarded in the amount of $25,000 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
18	Singapore Professional Golfers’ Association v Chen Eng Waye: Passing Off & Unauthorised Use of 'Singapore Senior PGA' Name 23 May 2012 The Singapore Professional Golfers' Association (Plaintiff)Lost	23 May 2012	The Singapore Professional Golfers' Association (Plaintiff): Claim DismissedThe plaintiff's action against the defendants is dismissed with costs. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
19	Law Society of Singapore v Tay Choon Leng: Solicitor's Accounts Rules & Professional Conduct 19 Apr 2012 The Law Society of Singapore (Applicant)Won	19 Apr 2012	The Law Society of Singapore (Applicant): Judgment for ApplicantRespondent ordered to pay a penalty of $15,000 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore) and bear the costs of the Law Society.
20	Asia Pacific Publishing v Pioneers & Leaders: Copyright Infringement and Passing Off Dispute 26 Jul 2011 Pioneers & Leaders (Publishers) Pte Ltd (Respondent)Lost	26 Jul 2011	Pioneers & Leaders (Publishers) Pte Ltd (Respondent): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed. The Respondent's claim for copyright infringement and passing off was rejected. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
21	City Chain v Louis Vuitton: Trade Mark Infringement, Passing Off & Well-Known Trade Marks 05 Nov 2009 City Chain Stores (S) Pte Ltd (Appellant)Won	05 Nov 2009	City Chain Stores (S) Pte Ltd (Appellant): Appeal AllowedThe appeal was allowed, and the claims against the appellant were dismissed.
22	ABB v Sher Hock Guan: Director's Fiduciary Duties & Contractual Terms in Competitor Assistance 05 Jul 2009 ABB Industry Pte Ltd (Plaintiff)Won	05 Jul 2009	ABB Industry Pte Ltd (Plaintiff): Judgment for PlaintiffJudgment for the third plaintiff against the defendant for either damages to be assessed or an account of the defendant’s profits to be taken, at the election of the third plaintiff. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
23	Mitac v SingTel: Trade Mark Infringement Dispute over 'Mio' Marks 04 Jun 2009 Mitac International Corp (Plaintiff, Appellant)Lost	04 Jun 2009	Mitac International Corp (Plaintiff, Appellant): Claims dismissedPlaintiff's claims for trade mark infringement and invalidation of defendant's trade marks were dismissed with costs to the defendant. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
24	Novelty Pte Ltd v Amanresorts Ltd: Passing Off & Well-Known Trade Marks 30 Mar 2009 Novelty Pte Ltd (Appellant)Lost	30 Mar 2009	Novelty Pte Ltd (Appellant): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed with costs; the court upheld the High Court's decision that the Respondents' passing off claim and claim under Section 55(3)(a) of the Trade Marks Act had been made out. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
25	Chinese Calligraphy Society v Khoo Seng Kong: Passing Off Dispute 29 Jul 2008 The Chinese Calligraphy Society of Singapore (Plaintiff)Won	29 Jul 2008	The Chinese Calligraphy Society of Singapore (Plaintiff): Judgment for PlaintiffJudgment for the Plaintiff; an assessment of damages was ordered instead of an account of profits. The judgment does not specify a currency, so the currency of the jurisdiction (Singapore) is assumed.
26	Wing Joo Loong v Qinghai Xinyuan: Trade Mark Revocation & Copyright Dispute over 'Rooster Brand' Cordyceps 08 Apr 2008 Wing Joo Loong Ginseng Hong (Singapore) Co Pte Ltd (Plaintiff)Partial	08 Apr 2008	Wing Joo Loong Ginseng Hong (Singapore) Co Pte Ltd (Plaintiff): Prayers 1 and 2 dismissed with costs. Prayer 3 declaration made, restricted to the first defendant.Prayers 1 and 2 dismissed with costs. With reference to prayer 3, the declaration is made, restricted to the first defendant. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
27	Amanresorts v Novelty: Passing Off & Trademark Infringement over 'Amanusa' Brand 26 Nov 2007 Novelty Pte Ltd (Defendant)Lost	26 Nov 2007	Novelty Pte Ltd (Defendant): Injunction GrantedInjunction granted to restrain the defendant from using the plaintiffs’ trade marks, in particular, Amanusa, in relation to any form of accommodation. The defendant was further ordered to apply to the Street and Building Names Board for a change of name for the Yio Chu Kang project and to inform the said board about my orders within 4 weeks from the date of pronouncement (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
28	Law Society of Singapore v Vardan Vasantha Lakshmi: Conflict of Interest in Property Sale 07 Nov 2006 Law Society of Singapore (Applicant)Won	07 Nov 2006	Law Society of Singapore (Applicant): WonThe Law Society of Singapore's application was successful, resulting in the respondent's suspension.
29	Future Enterprises v McDonald's: Likelihood of Confusion Between 'MacCoffee' and 'McCAFÉ' Trademarks 28 Sep 2006 Future Enterprises Pte Ltd (Appellant)Lost	28 Sep 2006	Future Enterprises Pte Ltd (Appellant): Appeal dismissedAppeal dismissed with costs of $10,000 to be paid to the respondent (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
30	Richemont International SA v Da Vinci Collections: Trade Mark Infringement & Validity 21 Aug 2006 Da Vinci Collections Pte Ltd (Defendant)Lost	21 Aug 2006	Da Vinci Collections Pte Ltd (Defendant): Injunction GrantedInjunction granted against the defendant, its officers, servants, and agents, restraining them from advertising its watches using the word mark 'DA VINCI'. Currency assumed to be SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
31	Da Vinci Collection v Richemont: Trade Mark Infringement & Interim Injunction 21 Jun 2006 Da Vinci Collection Pte Ltd (Appellant)Won	21 Jun 2006	Da Vinci Collection Pte Ltd (Appellant): Appeal AllowedAppeal allowed with costs in the cause (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
32	McDonald's Corp v Future Enterprises: Trade Mark Registration Dispute 02 Nov 2004 Future Enterprises Pte Ltd (Respondent)Won	02 Nov 2004	Future Enterprises Pte Ltd (Respondent): Registration AllowedFuture Enterprises was allowed to register its trade marks 'MacTea', 'MacChocolate', and 'MacNoodles'.
33	McDonald's v Future Enterprises: Trade Mark Registration & Likelihood of Confusion 25 Apr 2004 Future Enterprises Pte Ltd (Applicant, Respondent)Won	25 Apr 2004	Future Enterprises Pte Ltd (Applicant, Respondent): Registration AllowedThe court dismissed the opposition to the registration of the trade marks and awarded costs to the applicant. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
34	Pan-West v Grand Bigwin: Trade Mark Infringement & Passing Off of KATANA Golf Clubs 19 Oct 2003 Grand Bigwin Pte Ltd (Defendant, Appellant)Lost	19 Oct 2003	Grand Bigwin Pte Ltd (Defendant, Appellant): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed with costs fixed at SGD5,000.00. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
35	Bee Cheng Hiang v Fragrance: Copyright Infringement, Fair Dealing & Trademark Act Defence 31 Oct 2002 Fragrance Foodstuff Pte Ltd (Respondent, Plaintiff)Lost	31 Oct 2002	Fragrance Foodstuff Pte Ltd (Respondent, Plaintiff): Summary Judgment Set AsideSummary judgment in favour of Fragrance was set aside.
36	Yunnan Baiyao v Tong Jum Chew: Passing Off & Goodwill in Herbal Drug Trade 20 Oct 2002 Tong Yen Tien (Defendant)Won	20 Oct 2002	Tong Yen Tien (Defendant): Judgment for DefendantThe court found in favor of the defendant, dismissing the plaintiff's claim.
37	Fragrance Foodstuff v Bee Cheng Hiang: Copyright & Trademark Infringement Dispute 08 Jul 2002 Fragrance Foodstuff Pte Ltd (Plaintiff)Won	08 Jul 2002	Fragrance Foodstuff Pte Ltd (Plaintiff): Injunction GrantedInjunction granted to restrain the defendants from infringing the plaintiffs' copyright in the Work. Costs of $10,000 awarded to the plaintiffs (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
38	Genelabs v Institut Pasteur: HIV-2 Patent Validity & Infringement 01 Nov 2000 Genelabs Diagnostics Pte Ltd (Appellant)Lost	01 Nov 2000	Genelabs Diagnostics Pte Ltd (Appellant): Appeal dismissedAppeal against the decision of Tay Yong Kwang JC was dismissed with costs and with the usual consequential orders. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
39	Hunter Manufacturing v Soundtex: Design Infringement, Remedies, and Costs 11 Jan 2000 Soundtex Switchgear & Engineering Pte Ltd (Respondent, Appellant)Lost	11 Jan 2000	Soundtex Switchgear & Engineering Pte Ltd (Respondent, Appellant): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed; ordered to pay costs of claim, counterclaim, and appeals to Hunter (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).