Goh Chan Peng
Goh Chan Peng is a individual in Singapore's legal system. The party has been involved in 5 cases in Singapore's courts. Represented by 12 counsels. Through 3 law firms. Their track record shows a 20.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have been involved in 5 complex cases, representing 100.0% of their total caseload.
Legal Representation
Goh Chan Peng has been represented by 3 law firms and 12 counsels.
Law Firm | Cases Handled |
---|---|
Drew & Napier LLC | 1 case |
Davinder Singh Chambers LLC | 1 case |
NLC Law Asia LLP | 1 case |
Case Complexity Analysis
Analysis of Goh Chan Peng's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.
Complexity Overview
- Average Parties per Case
- 6.6
- Complex Cases
- 5 (100.0%)
- Cases with more than 3 parties
Complexity by Case Type
Type | Cases |
---|---|
Lost | 16.0 parties avg |
Neutral | 17.0 parties avg |
Partial | 26.5 parties avg |
Won | 17.0 parties avg |
Complexity Trends Over Time
Year | Cases |
---|---|
2021 | 17.0 parties avg |
2020 | 27.0 parties avg |
2017 | 16.0 parties avg |
2016 | 16.0 parties avg |
Case Outcome Analytics
Analysis of Goh Chan Peng's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.
Outcome Distribution
Outcome Type | Cases |
---|---|
Lost | 1(20.0%) |
Neutral | 1(20.0%) |
Partial | 2(40.0%) |
Won | 1(20.0%) |
Monetary Outcomes
Currency | Average |
---|---|
SGD | 0.003 cases |
Yearly Outcome Trends
Year | Total Cases |
---|---|
2021 | 1 1 |
2020 | 2 11 |
2017 | 1 1 |
2016 | 1 1 |
Case History
Displaying all 5 cases
Case | Role | Outcome |
---|---|---|
01 Jun 2021 | Respondent, Defendant | PartialJudgment against Mr Goh for the Unjustified Bonus and Salaries claims (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
29 Sep 2020 | Defendant | NeutralDefendants opposed the Plaintiffs' application for leave to appeal. |
27 May 2020 | Defendant | WonAction struck out as an abuse of process. |
26 Jun 2017 | Appellant, Respondent | PartialAppeal allowed in part; order to pay US$2,970,559 for Diversion Loss and US$4,793,591 for Total Loss set aside. Order to pay $126,967.45 representing the unjustified expenses shall be reduced to $110,967.45 due to the deduction of the $16,000 spent on the fountain pens. |
27 Jun 2016 | Defendant | LostCounterclaim dismissed; no damages awarded. |