Ho Seow Wan

Ho Seow Wan 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 2 law firms. Their track record shows a 66.7% success rate in resolved cases. They have been involved in 2 complex cases, representing 66.7% of their total caseload.

Legal Representation

Ho Seow Wan has been represented by 2 law firms and 6 counsels.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Counsels
Advocatus Law LLP	1 case	Christopher Anand s/o Daniel Arlene Foo Li Chuan
Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC	2 cases	Lynette Chew Grace Lu Leonard Chew Gadriel Tan

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Ho Seow Wan's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 3.3
Complex Cases: 2 (66.7%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	12.0 parties avg	2.0	33.3%
Won	24.0 parties avg	4.0	66.7%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2018	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2015	24.0 parties avg	4.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Ho Seow Wan'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%
Won	2(66.7%)	66.7%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	6,500.00	3,250.002 cases	2

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2018	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2015	1 2	Won: 2 cases (200.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 3 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Role	Outcome
1	2018-sghc-31 05 Feb 2018	05 Feb 2018	Plaintiff	LostTaxation application dismissed; Mr. Ho ordered to pay costs of S$6,500 to MLS (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
2	2015-sghc-304 24 Nov 2015	24 Nov 2015	Plaintiff	WonDefendants found guilty of contempt and fined; plaintiff awarded 90% of costs (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
3	2015-sghc-235 06 Sep 2015	06 Sep 2015	Plaintiff	WonPlaintiff's application for an order for committal of the defendants for contempt of court was successful.