First Power International Limited

First Power International Limited is a corporation in Singapore's legal system. The party has been involved in 3 cases in Singapore's courts. Represented by 8 counsels. Through 1 law firm. Their track record shows a 33.3% success rate in resolved cases. They have been involved in 3 complex cases, representing 100.0% of their total caseload.

Legal Representation

First Power International Limited has been represented by 1 law firm and 8 counsels.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Counsels
Lee & Lee	2 cases	Christopher James de Souza Tan Tee Jim Nandhu Gayathri Sivasurian Christopher de Souza Basil Lee Amanda Lim Jia Yan Darrell Wee Jiawei

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of First Power International Limited's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 8.0
Complex Cases: 3 (100.0%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Dismissed	18.0 parties avg	8.0	33.3%
Lost	18.0 parties avg	8.0	33.3%
Won	18.0 parties avg	8.0	33.3%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2018	28.0 parties avg	8.0
2016	18.0 parties avg	8.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of First Power International Limited's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Dismissed	1(33.3%)	33.3%
Lost	1(33.3%)	33.3%
Won	1(33.3%)	33.3%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	200,000.00	100,000.002 cases	2

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2018	2 11	Dismissed: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2016	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 3 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Role	Outcome
1	2018-sghc-164 22 Jul 2018	22 Jul 2018	Plaintiff	WonCosts to be paid by the 3rd defendant to the plaintiffs fixed at $200,000 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
2	2018-sghc-57 15 Mar 2018	15 Mar 2018	Plaintiff	DismissedThe other sums claimed for, such as the PEPL Share Purchase Sum and PEPL Advance Payments have not been shown to be losses incurred by the plaintiffs as a result of CAMA and CAB’s failure to transfer the ownership of CAE to the plaintiffs.
3	2016-sghc-158 10 Aug 2016	10 Aug 2016	Plaintiff, Appellant	LostAppeal dismissed with costs reserved to the trial judge. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.