Vanathi S

Vanathi S is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2010 to 2015. The lawyer has handled 4 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 2 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in torts and trust law. Their track record shows a 25.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 2 complex cases, representing 50% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Vanathi S has demonstrated expertise across 21 primary practice areas, with significant experience in company law and commercial disputes.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Company Law	3 cases	12% of total caseload	Experienced71% relevance score	Vanathi S has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 12% of their total caseload.
Commercial Disputes	2 cases	8% of total caseload	Experienced61% relevance score	Vanathi S has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Minority Oppression	2 cases	8% of total caseload	Experienced74% relevance score	Vanathi S has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	2 cases	8% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Vanathi S has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Litigation	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Vanathi S has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Personal Injury	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Vanathi S has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Shareholder Disputes	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Vanathi S 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 Specialized90% relevance score	Vanathi S has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Fiduciary Duties	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Vanathi S has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Estoppel	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice25% relevance score	Vanathi S has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Trust Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Vanathi S 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 Practice30% relevance score	Vanathi S has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Specific performance	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Vanathi S has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Damages	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Vanathi S has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Shareholders Agreement	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Vanathi S has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Disclosure of documents	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Vanathi S 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	Experienced70% relevance score	Vanathi S has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Casino Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Vanathi S has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Corporate Law	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Vanathi S has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Corporate Litigation	1 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Vanathi S has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Insurance Bad Faith	1 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Vanathi S has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Vanathi S has been affiliated with 2 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 3 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Drew & Napier LLC	3 cases	75% of cases	Chiang Sing Jeong v Treasure Resort: Shareholding Dispute & Express Trust Claim(Jul 2013) Tan Eck Hong v Maxz Universal: Specific Performance of Shareholders’ Agreement Dispute(Nov 2012) Chiang Sing Jeong v Treasure Resort: Discovery Dispute & Shareholder Oppression(Feb 2010)
Providence Law Asia LLC	1 cases	25% of cases	Goel Adesh Kumar v Resorts World: False Imprisonment, Assault & Battery in Casino(Nov 2015)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Vanathi S's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 5.7
Complex Cases: 2 (50%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	23.5 parties avg	3.5	50%
Partial	13.0 parties avg	3.0	25%
Won	18.0 parties avg	8.0	25%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2010	18.0 parties avg	8.0
2012	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2013	15.0 parties avg	5.0
2015	13.0 parties avg	3.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	2(50%)	50%
Partial	1(25%)	25%
Won	1(25%)	25%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	36,732.59	18,366.302 cases	2

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2010	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2012	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2013	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2015	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 4 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Goel Adesh Kumar v Resorts World: False Imprisonment, Assault & Battery in Casino 03 Nov 2015 Goel Adesh Kumar (Plaintiff)Partial	03 Nov 2015	Goel Adesh Kumar (Plaintiff): Judgment for the plaintiff in partJudgment for the plaintiff in part. The Casino is liable for $36,732.59, that being 80% of the total damages that I have awarded (ie, $45,915.74). Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
2	Chiang Sing Jeong v Treasure Resort: Shareholding Dispute & Express Trust Claim 04 Jul 2013 Maxz Universal Development Group Pte Ltd (Defendant)Lost	04 Jul 2013	Maxz Universal Development Group Pte Ltd (Defendant): Shares to be transferredOrdered to transfer the TR shares to which Lim is entitled under the trust to him within 30 days.
3	Tan Eck Hong v Maxz Universal: Specific Performance of Shareholders’ Agreement Dispute 29 Nov 2012 Maxz Universal Development Group Pte Limited (Defendant)Lost	29 Nov 2012	Maxz Universal Development Group Pte Limited (Defendant): Counterclaim DismissedMDG's counterclaim for a declaration that it is not bound by the Letter Agreement and the Call Option Agreement was dismissed. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
4	Chiang Sing Jeong v Treasure Resort: Discovery Dispute & Shareholder Oppression 28 Feb 2010 Poh Ban Leng (Defendant)Won	28 Feb 2010	Poh Ban Leng (Defendant): Appeal AllowedAppeal against the order for Treasure to make discovery of documents was allowed.