CAA Technologies Pte Ltd

CAA Technologies Pte Ltd is a corporation in Singapore's legal system. The party has been involved in 3 cases in Singapore's courts. Represented by 9 counsels. Through 2 law firms.

Legal Representation

CAA Technologies Pte Ltd has been represented by 2 law firms and 9 counsels.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Counsels
Optimus Chambers LLC	2 cases	Lim Bee Li Christine Chuah Hui Fen Choh Thian Chee Irving Kor Wan Wen Melissa Melissa Kor Irving Choh Thian Chee Irving Choh
Eldan Law LLP	1 case	Edwin Lee Peng Khoon Jennifer Fong Lee Cheng

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of CAA Technologies 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	22.0 parties avg	2.0	66.7%
Partial	12.0 parties avg	2.0	33.3%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2017	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2016	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2015	12.0 parties avg	2.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	2(66.7%)	66.7%
Partial	1(33.3%)	33.3%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	0.00	0.003 cases	3

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2017	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)
2016	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2015	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 3 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Role	Outcome
1	2017-sgca-53 17 Sep 2017	17 Sep 2017	Appellant	PartialAppeal allowed in part; the order for CAA to pay $407,000 to Newcon for liquidated damages paid to JTC was set aside.
2	2016-sghc-246 28 Nov 2016	28 Nov 2016	Plaintiff, Defendant in Counterclaim	LostPlaintiff's claim is largely dismissed.
3	2015-sghc-32 27 Jan 2015	27 Jan 2015	Plaintiff	LostPlaintiff's claim for wrongful termination and wrongful call on banker's guarantee was dismissed.