Terence Tan

Terence Tan is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2001 to 2024. The lawyer has handled 15 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 8 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in criminal law and criminal procedure. Their track record shows a 38.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 5 complex cases, representing 33% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Terence Tan has demonstrated expertise across 66 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and company law.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	9 cases	9% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 9 cases which represents 9% of their total caseload.
Company Law	6 cases	6% of total caseload	General Practice42% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 6 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	4 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Evidence	3 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Commercial Disputes	3 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice48% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Misrepresentation	3 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced62% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Estoppel	2 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice22% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Bankruptcy	2 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice45% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Fiduciary Duties	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced73% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Agency Law	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced62% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Criminal Law	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized93% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Criminal Procedure	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Fraud and Deceit	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Negligence	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Arbitration	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced68% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Jurisdiction	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced58% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Banking Law	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
International Commercial Arbitration	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Sentencing	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Misuse of Drugs Act	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized100% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Admissibility of evidence	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Service out of jurisdiction	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Assessment of Legal Costs	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Production of documents	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Director's Duties	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Diminished Responsibility	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Legal Profession Act	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Murder	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Sudden fight	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Auditing Standards	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Financial Advisory	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Judgments and Orders	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Statutory Interpretation	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Judicial Review	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Shareholders Agreement	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Summary Judgement	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Disclosure of documents	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Peremptory orders	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Appeal	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Professional Ethics	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Quasi-partnership	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Accounting Services	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Road Traffic Accident Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Town Council Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Local Government Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Private Defence	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Wrongful life claim	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Banking and Finance	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Building and Construction Contracts	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Civil Litigation	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Commercial Litigation	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Corporate Governance	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Corporate Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Family Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
International Arbitration	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Litigation	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Medical Malpractice	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Partnership Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Property Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Winding Up	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Minority Oppression	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Evidence Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Ad Hoc Admission	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Terence Tan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Terence Tan has been affiliated with 8 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 4 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Rodyk & Davidson LLP	4 cases	27% of cases	Zim Integrated Shipping Services v Dafni Igal: Fiduciary Duty & Rebates(Dec 2010) LaserResearch v Internech: Interpretation of Companies Act s 299(2) and Rules of Court O 21 r 2(6) in Winding Up(Sep 2010) Eng Gee Seng v Quek Choon Teck: Minority Oppression in Quasi-Partnership Duck Abattoir(Sep 2009)
Robertson Chambers LLC	3 cases	20% of cases	Jasviderbir Sing Sethi v Sandeep Singh Bhatia: Misrepresentation & Contract Dispute(Jan 2021) Public Prosecutor v Pannir Selvam Pranthaman: Misuse of Drugs Act - Knowledge of Diamorphine Importation(Jun 2017) Iskandar bin Rahmat v Public Prosecutor: Murder Conviction Appeal - Diminished Responsibility, Private Defence(Feb 2017)
Drew & Napier LLC	2 cases	13% of cases	Vibrant Group Ltd v Tong Chi Ho: Dispute over Jurisdiction in Negligence Claim(Jul 2022) Telemedia v Credit Agricole: Breach of Mandate & Duty of Care in Share Transfer Dispute(Nov 2014)
Genesis Law Corporation	2 cases	13% of cases	Wuhu Ruyi Xinbo v Shandong Ruyi: Production of Documents and Peremptory Orders(Jul 2024) DFD v DFE: Disclosure of Documents and Peremptory Orders in International Arbitration Enforcement(Feb 2024)
Jeffrey Soh & Co	1 cases	7% of cases	Wellform Construction v Lay Sing: Joint Venture Accounting Dispute(Jan 2001)
M/s Peter Low LLC	1 cases	7% of cases	Attorney-General v Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council: Town Council's Financial Obligations and Remedies(Nov 2015)
Rodyk and Davidson	1 cases	7% of cases	JU v See Tho Kai Yin: Negligence & Breach of Contract in Down Syndrome Birth(Aug 2005)
Attorney-General’s Chambers	1 cases	7% of cases	Re Michael Fordham QC: Ad Hoc Admission & Judicial Review of Law Society Decision(Nov 2014)

Case Complexity Analysis

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

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 4.6
Complex Cases: 5 (33%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	74.7 parties avg	4.7	47%
Partial	36.5 parties avg	6.5	20%
Won	63.2 parties avg	3.2	40%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2001	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2005	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2008	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2009	14.0 parties avg	4.0
2010	28.4 parties avg	8.4
2014	23.0 parties avg	3.0
2015	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2017	23.0 parties avg	3.0
2021	14.0 parties avg	4.0
2022	14.0 parties avg	4.0
2024	23.0 parties avg	3.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	7(44%)	44%
Partial	3(19%)	19%
Won	6(38%)	38%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	2,162,938.43	360,489.746 cases	6

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2001	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2005	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2008	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)
2009	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2010	3 21	Lost: 2 cases (66.7%) Partial: 1 cases (33.3%)
2014	2 2	Won: 2 cases (100.0%)
2015	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2017	2 2	Lost: 2 cases (100.0%)
2021	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2022	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2024	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Partial: 1 cases (50.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 15 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Wuhu Ruyi Xinbo v Shandong Ruyi: Production of Documents and Peremptory Orders 24 Jul 2024 Wuhu Ruyi Xinbo Investment Partnership (Ltd Partnership) (Claimant)Lost	24 Jul 2024	Wuhu Ruyi Xinbo Investment Partnership (Ltd Partnership) (Claimant): Application DismissedClaimant's application for enforcement of a foreign arbitral award was dismissed due to non-compliance with the Production Order. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
2	DFD v DFE: Disclosure of Documents and Peremptory Orders in International Arbitration Enforcement 29 Feb 2024 DFD (Claimant)Partial	29 Feb 2024	DFD (Claimant): Order to produce documentsOrder to produce documents granted in part.
3	Vibrant Group Ltd v Tong Chi Ho: Dispute over Jurisdiction in Negligence Claim 03 Jul 2022 Findex (Aust) Pty Ltd (Defendant)Won	03 Jul 2022	Findex (Aust) Pty Ltd (Defendant): Application grantedThe court granted the 3rd Defendant's application to set aside the Leave Order.
4	Jasviderbir Sing Sethi v Sandeep Singh Bhatia: Misrepresentation & Contract Dispute 21 Jan 2021 Sandeep Singh Bhatia (Defendant)Won	21 Jan 2021	Sandeep Singh Bhatia (Defendant): Judgment for DefendantJudgment for the Defendant. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
5	Public Prosecutor v Pannir Selvam Pranthaman: Misuse of Drugs Act - Knowledge of Diamorphine Importation 26 Jun 2017 Pannir Selvam Pranthaman (Accused)Lost	26 Jun 2017	Pannir Selvam Pranthaman (Accused): GuiltyAccused was found guilty of importing diamorphine and sentenced to death.
6	Iskandar bin Rahmat v Public Prosecutor: Murder Conviction Appeal - Diminished Responsibility, Private Defence 02 Feb 2017 Iskandar bin Rahmat (Appellant)Lost	02 Feb 2017	Iskandar bin Rahmat (Appellant): Appeal DismissedThe appeal against the conviction of murder was dismissed.
7	Attorney-General v Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council: Town Council's Financial Obligations and Remedies 26 Nov 2015 ALJUNIED-HOUGANG-PUNGGOL EAST TOWN COUNCIL (Respondent)Lost	26 Nov 2015	ALJUNIED-HOUGANG-PUNGGOL EAST TOWN COUNCIL (Respondent): Appeal Allowed in PartThe appeal was allowed in part, with orders made against the respondent regarding sinking fund transfers and the appointment of accountants.
8	Telemedia v Credit Agricole: Breach of Mandate & Duty of Care in Share Transfer Dispute 17 Nov 2014 Credit Agricole (Suisse) SA (Defendant)Won	17 Nov 2014	Credit Agricole (Suisse) SA (Defendant): Judgment for DefendantJudgment was given in favor of the defendant; the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.
9	Re Michael Fordham QC: Ad Hoc Admission & Judicial Review of Law Society Decision 04 Nov 2014 Attorney-General (Respondent)Won	04 Nov 2014	Attorney-General (Respondent): Successful Resistance of ApplicationSuccessfully resisted the application for ad hoc admission.
10	Zim Integrated Shipping Services v Dafni Igal: Fiduciary Duty & Rebates 01 Dec 2010 Star Shipping Agencies (Singapore) Pte Limited (Appellant)Lost	01 Dec 2010	Star Shipping Agencies (Singapore) Pte Limited (Appellant): Appeal dismissedAppeal dismissed. No monetary amount specified. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
11	LaserResearch v Internech: Interpretation of Companies Act s 299(2) and Rules of Court O 21 r 2(6) in Winding Up 23 Sep 2010 LaserResearch (S) Pte Ltd (in liquidation) (Applicant, Defendant)Lost	23 Sep 2010	LaserResearch (S) Pte Ltd (in liquidation) (Applicant, Defendant): Application DismissedOriginating Summons No 495 of 2010 for the return of the bank guarantee was dismissed with costs. The court assumed the currency is SGD, the currency of the jurisdiction.
12	Eng Gee Seng v Quek Choon Teck: Minority Oppression in Quasi-Partnership Duck Abattoir 17 Sep 2009 Goh Gok Siang (Defendant)Lost	17 Sep 2009	Goh Gok Siang (Defendant): Claim Against Defendant UpheldThe court ordered the 1st and 2nd Defendants to purchase the Plaintiff’s shares in the 3rd Defendant. The judgment does not specify a currency, so SGD is assumed as the currency of the jurisdiction.
13	DBS Bank v Yamazaki Mazak: Tort of Deceit & Summary Judgment in Loan Disbursement Dispute 20 Oct 2008 DBS Bank Ltd (Plaintiff, Respondent)Partial	20 Oct 2008	DBS Bank Ltd (Plaintiff, Respondent): Appeal dismissed with a variation of the judgment sumAppeal dismissed with a variation of the judgment sum awarded to the plaintiff against the second defendant. The judgment sum was reduced by the net sales proceeds of the 26 machines recovered and sold by the plaintiff. Interest was ordered at 5.33% per annum on the sum of $1.94m from the date of disbursement of the loan until the date of sale of the 26 machines and thereafter on the net amount after deduction of the net sales proceeds. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
14	JU v See Tho Kai Yin: Negligence & Breach of Contract in Down Syndrome Birth 07 Aug 2005 See Tho Kai Yin (Defendant)Won	07 Aug 2005	See Tho Kai Yin (Defendant): Judgment for DefendantJudgment in favor of the defendant.
15	Wellform Construction v Lay Sing: Joint Venture Accounting Dispute 12 Jan 2001 Wellform Construction Pte Ltd (Plaintiff, Appellant)Won	12 Jan 2001	Wellform Construction Pte Ltd (Plaintiff, Appellant): Appeal AllowedAppeal allowed; Lay Sing is to pay Wellform Construction $222,938.43 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of Writ of Summons until the day before judgment (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).