Khoo Cheng Neo Norma

Khoo Cheng Neo Norma is a individual in Singapore's legal system. The party has been involved in 11 cases in Singapore's courts. Represented by 4 counsels. Through 3 law firms. They have been involved in 7 complex cases, representing 63.6% of their total caseload.

Legal Representation

Khoo Cheng Neo Norma has been represented by 3 law firms and 4 counsels.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Counsels
G R Law Corporation	2 cases	G Raman Raman Gopalan
G Raman & Partners	1 case	G Raman V Suriamurthi
Khattar Wong & Partners	1 case	Alvin Chang

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Khoo Cheng Neo Norma's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 3.6
Complex Cases: 7 (63.6%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	83.5 parties avg	3.5	72.7%
Neutral	34.0 parties avg	4.0	27.3%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2010	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2009	33.7 parties avg	3.7
2008	44.0 parties avg	4.0
2007	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2003	14.0 parties avg	4.0
2002	13.0 parties avg	3.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Khoo Cheng Neo Norma's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	8(72.7%)	72.7%
Neutral	3(27.3%)	27.3%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	10,500.00	1,166.679 cases	9

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2010	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2009	1 3	Lost: 3 cases (300.0%)
2008	2 13	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Neutral: 3 cases (150.0%)
2007	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2003	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2002	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 11 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Role	Outcome
1	2010-sghc-36 07 Feb 2010	07 Feb 2010	Plaintiff	LostApplication for leave to apply for mandatory orders was dismissed. No monetary amount was specified. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
2	2009-sgca-61 08 Dec 2009	08 Dec 2009	Appellant	LostAppeal struck out due to failure to serve notice of appeal within the prescribed time. Costs awarded to the respondent. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
3	2009-sghc-129 26 May 2009	26 May 2009	Plaintiff, Appellant	LostPlaintiffs' appeal dismissed; costs of $1,400 to the first defendant and $1,300 to the second defendant were ordered. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
4	2009-sghc-71 24 Mar 2009	24 Mar 2009	Plaintiff	LostApplication to compel police investigation was dismissed; plaintiffs ordered to pay costs to the defendants (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
5	2008-sghc-200 09 Nov 2008	09 Nov 2008	Defendant, Respondent	LostApplication to discharge the injunction was dismissed. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
6	2008-sghc-84 04 Jun 2008	04 Jun 2008	Defendant	NeutralPrayer (i) of Summons 855/08 dismissed with costs. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
7	2008-sghc-63 28 Apr 2008	28 Apr 2008	Defendant	NeutralThe court declined to make any order of committal against the defendant.
8	2008-sghc-54 09 Apr 2008	09 Apr 2008	Defendant	NeutralThe third defendant, wife of the second defendant, is legally represented and was served the applications by the second defendant. Her counsel merely associated himself with the second defendant’s submissions and did not wish to ask for costs. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
9	2007-sghc-29 27 Feb 2007	27 Feb 2007	Plaintiff, Appellant	LostAppeal dismissed with costs fixed at $4,500 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
10	2003-sghc-64 23 Mar 2003	23 Mar 2003	Applicant	LostOriginating Motion dismissed; Applicants ordered to pay 90% of costs to the arbitrator and costs of the application to the Second Respondent. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
11	2002-sghc-139 04 Jul 2002	04 Jul 2002	Respondent	LostAppeal dismissed and interim injunction restored. Costs awarded against the respondent in the amount of $6,000 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).