Vincent John

Vincent John is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2005 to 2006. The lawyer has handled 2 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 2 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in civil practice and personal injury.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Vincent John has demonstrated expertise across 12 primary practice areas, with significant experience in civil litigation and civil practice.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Civil Litigation	1 cases	8% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Vincent John has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	1 cases	8% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Vincent John has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Negligence	1 cases	8% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Vincent John has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Personal Injury	1 cases	8% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Vincent John has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Misrepresentation	1 cases	8% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Vincent John has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Jurisdiction	1 cases	8% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	Vincent John has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Damages Assessment	1 cases	8% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Vincent John has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Estoppel	1 cases	8% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Vincent John has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	1 cases	8% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Vincent John has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Guarantee	1 cases	8% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Vincent John has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Summary Judgement	1 cases	8% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Vincent John has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy	1 cases	8% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Vincent John has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Vincent John has been affiliated with 2 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 1 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Andrew Yap & Company	1 cases	50% of cases	Kuala Lumpur City Securities v Boston Asset Management: Default Judgment & Forum Dispute(Jun 2006)
Andrew Yap and Company	1 cases	50% of cases	Mei Yue Lan Margaret v Raffles City: Assessment of Damages for Leg Injury and Loss of Amenities(Sep 2005)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Vincent John's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 2.7
Complex Cases: 0 (0%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	13.0 parties avg	3.0	50%
Partial	12.0 parties avg	2.0	50%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2005	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2006	13.0 parties avg	3.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	1(50%)	50%
Partial	1(50%)	50%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	20,000.00	10,000.002 cases	2

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2005	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)
2006	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 2 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Kuala Lumpur City Securities v Boston Asset Management: Default Judgment & Forum Dispute 05 Jun 2006 Tan Hong Liat Ronald (Defendant, Appellant)Lost	05 Jun 2006	Tan Hong Liat Ronald (Defendant, Appellant): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed with costs (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
2	Mei Yue Lan Margaret v Raffles City: Assessment of Damages for Leg Injury and Loss of Amenities 13 Sep 2005 Mei Yue Lan Margaret (Plaintiff, Appellant)Partial	13 Sep 2005	Mei Yue Lan Margaret (Plaintiff, Appellant): Appeal allowed in partAwarded $20,000 in the round as an addition to the assistant registrar’s award of $30,870.64 for pre-trial loss of earnings, to cover Margaret’s loss of annual wage supplement, some further bonus and increments and employer’s Central Provident Fund contributions up to the date of assessment. (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore)