Alliance Concrete Singapore Pte Ltd

Alliance Concrete Singapore Pte Ltd is a corporation in Singapore's legal system. The party has been involved in 7 cases in Singapore's courts. Represented by 13 counsels. Through 2 law firms. Their track record shows a 57.1% success rate in resolved cases.

Legal Representation

Alliance Concrete Singapore Pte Ltd has been represented by 2 law firms and 13 counsels.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Counsels
Rajah & Tann LLP	1 case	Francis Xavier SC Toh Kian Sing Mark Tan Charmaine Lim Winston Kwek Choon Lin Tng Sheng Rong Avinash Pradhan Winston Kwek Low Yi Yang Istyana Ibrahim Muthu Arusu Eileen Lam
Rajah & Tann	1 case	Kwek Choon Lin Winston Winston Kwek Eileen Lam

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Alliance Concrete Singapore Pte Ltd's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 2.0
Complex Cases: 0 (0.0%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	32.0 parties avg	2.0	42.9%
Won	42.0 parties avg	2.0	57.1%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2014	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2013	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2010	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2009	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2008	22.0 parties avg	2.0
2007	12.0 parties avg	2.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Alliance Concrete Singapore Pte Ltd's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	3(42.9%)	42.9%
Won	4(57.1%)	57.1%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	11,000.00	2,200.005 cases	5

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2014	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2013	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2010	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2009	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2008	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2007	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 7 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Role	Outcome
1	2014-sgca-35 29 May 2014	29 May 2014	Appellant	WonAppeal allowed with costs here and below. SK is to make payment to ACS for all the RMC supplied by ACS, but the cost of SK procuring sand for ACS to produce RMC should be deducted from any such sums which SK owes ACS. Any RMC supplied by ACS to SK prior to 6 February 2007 will be assessed at the rates stipulated in the Contracts. With respect to the RMC supplied by ACS after the Sand Ban and from 6 February 2007 onwards, we grant ACS’s prayer for payment from SK of a reasonable sum, to be assessed on a restitutionary quantum meruit and/or valebat basis. All the aforementioned sums should be assessed by the Registrar. Interest on the assessed sums is awarded at the rate of 3% per annum from the date of filing of the writ to the date of assessment. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
2	2013-sghc-127 04 Jul 2013	04 Jul 2013	Plaintiff	LostThe plaintiff's claim for payment was dismissed. The amount owed would be based on the terms of the Contracts but SK should be honourable enough to adhere to BCA’s cost-sharing arrangement for increases in the price of sand as it had claimed all along that it had accepted the said arrangement after the Sand Ban. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
3	2010-sghc-338 14 Nov 2010	14 Nov 2010	Plaintiff, Appellant	LostAppeal dismissed; costs of $1,000 (inclusive of disbursements) to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
4	2009-sgca-34 27 Jul 2009	27 Jul 2009	Appellant	WonAppeal allowed with costs. Damages to the Appellant should be assessed based on 30,000mt of sand per month. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
5	2008-sghc-122 04 Aug 2008	04 Aug 2008	Defendant, Plaintiff	LostAlliance Concrete's claim in the second suit was dismissed (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
6	2008-sgca-5 25 Feb 2008	25 Feb 2008	Respondent	WonAppeal dismissed; costs of $10,000 awarded to the respondent.
7	2007-sghc-64 10 May 2007	10 May 2007	Defendant	WonThe plaintiff's application for an interlocutory mandatory injunction was dismissed.