JTrust Asia Pte Ltd
JTrust Asia Pte Ltd is a corporation in Singapore's legal system. The party has been involved in 9 cases in Singapore's courts. Represented by 13 counsels. Through 3 law firms. Their track record shows a 44.4% success rate in resolved cases. They have been involved in 8 complex cases, representing 88.9% of their total caseload.
Legal Representation
JTrust Asia Pte Ltd has been represented by 3 law firms and 13 counsels.
Law Firm | Cases Handled |
---|---|
Wong & Leow LLC | 2 cases |
Colin Liew LLC | 1 case |
Chan Leng Sun LLC | 1 case |
Case Complexity Analysis
Analysis of JTrust Asia Pte Ltd's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.
Complexity Overview
- Average Parties per Case
- 7.1
- Complex Cases
- 8 (88.9%)
- Cases with more than 3 parties
Complexity by Case Type
Type | Cases |
---|---|
Lost | 28.5 parties avg |
Neutral | 18.0 parties avg |
Partial | 29.0 parties avg |
Won | 45.3 parties avg |
Complexity Trends Over Time
Year | Cases |
---|---|
2024 | 14.0 parties avg |
2023 | 27.0 parties avg |
2021 | 26.0 parties avg |
2020 | 29.0 parties avg |
2019 | 18.0 parties avg |
2018 | 18.0 parties avg |
Case Outcome Analytics
Analysis of JTrust Asia Pte Ltd's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.
Outcome Distribution
Outcome Type | Cases |
---|---|
Lost | 2(22.2%) |
Neutral | 1(11.1%) |
Partial | 2(22.2%) |
Won | 4(44.4%) |
Monetary Outcomes
Currency | Average |
---|---|
SGD | 11,600.005 cases |
USD | 124,474,854.002 cases |
Yearly Outcome Trends
Year | Total Cases |
---|---|
2024 | 1 1 |
2023 | 1 2 |
2021 | 2 11 |
2020 | 2 11 |
2019 | 1 1 |
2018 | 1 1 |
Case History
Displaying all 9 cases
Case | Role | Outcome |
---|---|---|
25 Jul 2024 | Claimant | WonWinding up order granted. JTA's costs of and incidental to this winding up application be paid to JTA out of GLH’s assets. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
21 Nov 2023 | Respondent, Plaintiff | WonJudgment for the Plaintiff; damages awarded in the amount of $124,474,854.00 plus interest (assumed USD, as the judgment refers to US dollar amounts). |
15 Jun 2023 | Plaintiff | WonJudgment for the Plaintiff; damages awarded in the amount of $124,474,854.00 (USD). |
17 Oct 2021 | Respondent, Plaintiff | WonApplication to dismiss Engine Holdings Asia Pte Ltd's application for leave to appeal was granted, and JTrust Asia Pte Ltd was awarded costs of $8,000 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
25 Mar 2021 | Appellant | PartialThe reinstated Mareva injunctions be extended until the respondents satisfy the Judgment Sum and costs. The enjoined quantum of the Mareva injunctions be reduced to US$50 million. The appellant is to complete compiling its disbursements and notify the respondents of its costs for the High Court Trial within two weeks. R1 and R2 are to file a fresh affidavit within three weeks to disclose assets up to the value of US$100 million, unless the Judgment Sum and costs are paid up by then. Any valuation of assets so disclosed must be properly supported and not based on incomplete, arbitrary or subjective belief. The appellant’s Undertakings are to remain in the meantime. Costs of an aggregate sum of $50,000 inclusive of disbursements to the appellant with the usual consequential orders for payment out. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
31 May 2020 | Appellant | PartialDomestic Mareva injunction against Mitsuji Konoshita and worldwide Mareva injunction against Group Lease Holdings Pte Ltd reinstated. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
11 Feb 2020 | Plaintiff | LostPlaintiff's claims in the torts of deceit and conspiracy against all the defendants are dismissed. The judgment does not specify a currency, so SGD is assumed as the jurisdiction is Singapore. |
31 Jan 2019 | Plaintiff | NeutralApplication to strike out the plaintiff’s action is dismissed with costs reserved to the trial judge. |
22 Feb 2018 | Plaintiff | LostPlaintiff's applications to expand the Mareva injunction and prohibit specific conduct were dismissed. |