Tyne Lam

Tyne Lam is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2021 to 2024. The lawyer has handled 3 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 1 law firm. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in civil practice and negligence. Their track record shows a 67.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 2 complex cases, representing 67% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Tyne Lam has demonstrated expertise across 23 primary practice areas, with significant experience in arbitration and breach of contract.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Arbitration	3 cases	11% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	Tyne Lam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 11% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	2 cases	7% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Tyne Lam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Misrepresentation	2 cases	7% of total caseload	Experienced58% relevance score	Tyne Lam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Tyne Lam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Commercial Fraud	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Tyne Lam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Negligence	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Tyne Lam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Fraud and Deceit	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tyne Lam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Unjust Enrichment	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Tyne Lam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Setting aside	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Tyne Lam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Costs	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Tyne Lam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Res Judicata	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Tyne Lam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Letter of Credit Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tyne Lam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Indemnity costs	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tyne Lam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Duty of Care	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Tyne Lam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Tyne Lam has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Fraudulent misrepresentation	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Tyne Lam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Tyne Lam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Summary Judgement	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Tyne Lam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Bills of Exchange	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Tyne Lam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Inducing Breach of Contract	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Tyne Lam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Fictitious Purchase Scheme	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Tyne Lam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Banking and Finance	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Tyne Lam has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Civil Litigation	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Tyne Lam has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Tyne Lam has been affiliated with 1 law firm. The most active affiliation involves 3 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Ascendant Legal LLC	3 cases	100% of cases	CIX v DGN: Res Judicata & Tort Claims Against Expert After Arbitration Loss(May 2024) Bank of China v BP Singapore: Negligence, Fraud & Letter of Credit Dispute(May 2021) BTN v BTP: Costs Judgment for Setting Aside Arbitral Award Application(Feb 2021)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Tyne Lam's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 3.8
Complex Cases: 2 (67%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	15.0 parties avg	5.0	33%
Won	23.3 parties avg	3.3	67%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2021	24.3 parties avg	4.3
2024	12.0 parties avg	2.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

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

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	112,367.12	56,183.562 cases	2

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2021	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2024	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 3 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	CIX v DGN: Res Judicata & Tort Claims Against Expert After Arbitration Loss 23 May 2024 DGN (Defendant)Won	23 May 2024	DGN (Defendant): Judgment for DefendantJudgment in favour of the defendant; the plaintiff is ordered to pay indemnity costs (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
2	Bank of China v BP Singapore: Negligence, Fraud & Letter of Credit Dispute 30 May 2021 BP Singapore Pte Ltd (Defendant, Respondent)Lost	30 May 2021	BP Singapore Pte Ltd (Defendant, Respondent): Appeal DismissedBP's appeal was dismissed, and the Bank's claims against it were reinstated.
3	BTN v BTP: Costs Judgment for Setting Aside Arbitral Award Application 15 Feb 2021 BTQ (Defendant)Won	15 Feb 2021	BTQ (Defendant): Costs awarded in favorCosts of $50,000 plus disbursements of $6,183.56 awarded to the defendants. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.