Lee Boon Hiok

Lee Boon Hiok is a individual in Singapore's legal system. The party has been involved in 3 cases in Singapore's courts. Represented by 4 counsels. Through 2 law firms. Their track record shows a 66.7% success rate in resolved cases. They have been involved in 3 complex cases, representing 100.0% of their total caseload.

Legal Representation

Lee Boon Hiok has been represented by 2 law firms and 4 counsels.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Counsels
Drew & Napier LLC	1 case	Adrian Tan Gim Hai Adrian Tan Tan Ijin
Drew and Napier LLC	1 case	Adrian Tan Lim Sing Yun

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Lee Boon Hiok's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 6.0
Complex Cases: 3 (100.0%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	16.0 parties avg	6.0	33.3%
Won	26.0 parties avg	6.0	66.7%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2008	16.0 parties avg	6.0
2007	26.0 parties avg	6.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Lee Boon Hiok'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	0.00	0.001 cases	1

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2008	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2007	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 3 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Role	Outcome
1	2008-sgca-34 30 Jul 2008	30 Jul 2008	Appellant	WonAppeal allowed; default judgment set aside.
2	2007-sghc-165 27 Sep 2007	27 Sep 2007	Defendant	WonAppeal dismissed; the court found that a stay was impractical because not all defendants were party to the arbitration agreement. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
3	2007-sghc-97 25 Jun 2007	25 Jun 2007	Defendant	LostJudgment in default of defence entered against the defendant. The judgment does not specify a currency, so the currency of the jurisdiction (Singapore) is assumed.