Bernhard Wilhelm Rudolf Weber

Bernhard Wilhelm Rudolf Weber is a individual in Singapore's legal system. The party has been involved in 3 cases in Singapore's courts. Represented by 6 counsels. Through 3 law firms. They have been involved in 1 complex case, representing 33.3% of their total caseload.

Legal Representation

Bernhard Wilhelm Rudolf Weber has been represented by 3 law firms and 6 counsels.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Counsels
Oon & Bazul LLP	1 case	Ammani Mathivanan Han Guangyuan Keith
Harry Elias Partnership LLP	1 case	Philip Fong Yeng Fatt Koh Xian Wei Jeffrey Kevin Koh Zhi Rong
Eversheds Harry Elias LLP	1 case	Philip Fong Yeng Fatt Koh Xian Wei Jeffrey Kevin Koh Zhi Rong

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Bernhard Wilhelm Rudolf Weber's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 3.7
Complex Cases: 1 (33.3%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	13.0 parties avg	3.0	33.3%
Neutral	15.0 parties avg	5.0	33.3%
Partial	13.0 parties avg	3.0	33.3%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2023	15.0 parties avg	5.0
2021	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2020	13.0 parties avg	3.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Bernhard Wilhelm Rudolf Weber's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	1(33.3%)	33.3%
Neutral	1(33.3%)	33.3%
Partial	1(33.3%)	33.3%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
EUR	417,370.76	417,370.761 cases	1

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2023	1 1	Neutral: 1 cases (100.0%)
2021	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)
2020	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 3 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Role	Outcome
1	2023-sghc-131 07 May 2023	07 May 2023	Applicant	NeutralThe court authorized the trustee to enter into the funding agreement, which is intended to benefit the bankruptcy estate and its creditors.
2	2021-sgca-24 24 Mar 2021	24 Mar 2021	Applicant, Appellant, Respondent, Defendant	PartialThe appeal was dismissed in part. The total quantum of the fees charged by Dextra to be disallowed is EUR 417,370.76. Dextra is also not entitled to charge a 5% secretarial fee for services rendered in April, September and November 2012, as it had not proven that the secretarial services (and the attendant fees) were authorized. Dextra’s and Weber’s claim for this additional sum of EUR 50,000 to Jade AP1 is therefore also disallowed. Assumed EUR as the case involves transactions in EUR.
3	2020-sghc-146 22 Jul 2020	22 Jul 2020	Defendant	LostJudgment against the defendant; monetary amount to be determined based on the findings of the court. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.