Willy Tay

Willy Tay is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2005 to 2009. The lawyer has handled 3 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 2 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in civil practice and damages assessment. Their track record shows a 33.0% success rate in resolved cases.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Willy Tay has demonstrated expertise across 16 primary practice areas, with significant experience in automobile accidents and civil practice.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Automobile Accidents	2 cases	10% of total caseload	Experienced58% relevance score	Willy Tay has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 10% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	2 cases	10% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Willy Tay has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 10% of their total caseload.
Personal Injury	2 cases	10% of total caseload	Experienced68% relevance score	Willy Tay has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 10% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	2 cases	10% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Willy Tay has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 10% of their total caseload.
Evidence Law	1 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Willy Tay has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Damages Assessment	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Willy Tay has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Costs	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Willy Tay has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Road Traffic Accident	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Willy Tay has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Road Accident Law	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Willy Tay has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Medical Negligence	1 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Willy Tay has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Offer to Settle	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Willy Tay has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Damages	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Willy Tay has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Assessment of Damages	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Willy Tay has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Evidence	1 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Willy Tay has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Provisional Damages	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Willy Tay has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Measure of Damages	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Willy Tay has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Willy Tay has been affiliated with 2 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 2 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Ari, Goh & Partners	2 cases	67% of cases	ACD v See Mun Li: Provisional Damages for Head Injuries in Child Road Accident(Sep 2009) Chua Jia Yan Emily v See Mun Li: Assessment of Damages for Head Injuries and Growth Hormone Deficiency(Feb 2009)
Ari Goh and Partners	1 cases	33% of cases	SBS Transit v Teo Chye Seng Douglas: Costs Award Dispute in Negligence Claim(Jan 2005)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Willy Tay's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 2.0
Complex Cases: 0 (0%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	12.0 parties avg	2.0	33%
Partial	12.0 parties avg	2.0	33%
Won	12.0 parties avg	2.0	33%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2005	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2009	22.0 parties avg	2.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	1(33%)	33%
Partial	1(33%)	33%
Won	1(33%)	33%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	132,409.00	66,204.502 cases	2

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2005	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)
2009	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 3 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	ACD v See Mun Li: Provisional Damages for Head Injuries in Child Road Accident 24 Sep 2009 See Mun Li (Defendant)Lost	24 Sep 2009	See Mun Li (Defendant): Judgment against the defendant with a provisional order for damagesJudgment against the defendant for immediate damages in the sum of $132,409 (being 65% of the total amount of $203,705), on the assumption that the plaintiff would not develop sexual hormonal deficiency leading to her inability to reach spontaneous puberty (the specific contingency). If the plaintiff does at a future date develop the specific contingency, she shall be entitled to make an application for further damages. Such application shall be made within 5 years of this order. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
2	Chua Jia Yan Emily v See Mun Li: Assessment of Damages for Head Injuries and Growth Hormone Deficiency 01 Feb 2009 See Mun Li (Defendant, Respondent)Won	01 Feb 2009	See Mun Li (Defendant, Respondent): Appeal DismissedThe defendant successfully opposed the plaintiff's appeal to adduce further medical evidence.
3	SBS Transit v Teo Chye Seng Douglas: Costs Award Dispute in Negligence Claim 25 Jan 2005 SBS Transit Ltd (formerly known as Singapore Bus Service Ltd) (Appellant)Partial	25 Jan 2005	SBS Transit Ltd (formerly known as Singapore Bus Service Ltd) (Appellant): Appeal allowed in partCosts order below varied. Each party to bear his/its own costs in respect of Teo’s claims. Teo to pay the costs of the applications for leave to appeal and the substantive appeal. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.