Leong Mei Chuan

Leong Mei Chuan is a individual in Singapore's legal system. The party has been involved in 4 cases in Singapore's courts. Represented by 5 counsels. Through 1 law firm. Their track record shows a 25.0% success rate in resolved cases.

Legal Representation

Leong Mei Chuan has been represented by 1 law firm and 5 counsels.

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Leong Mei Chuan's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case
2.0
Complex Cases
0 (0.0%)
Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

TypeCases
Lost12.0 parties avg
Partial22.0 parties avg
Won12.0 parties avg

Complexity Trends Over Time

YearCases
200212.0 parties avg
200122.0 parties avg
200012.0 parties avg

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Leong Mei Chuan's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome TypeCases
Lost1(25.0%)
Partial2(50.0%)
Won1(25.0%)

Monetary Outcomes

CurrencyAverage
SGD3,000.001 cases

Yearly Outcome Trends

YearTotal Cases
20021
1
20012
11
20001
1

Case History

Displaying all 4 cases

CaseRoleOutcome
15 Jan 2002
Respondent, AppellantPartialAppeal allowed to the extent that, in respect of the purchased Dell shares and the profits made under the first category stock options, her entitlement thereto shall be 30% instead of 15%.
24 Apr 2001
Appellant, PetitionerPartialMaintenance to be paid by the Husband to the Wife is $3,000 per month, effective from 1 January 2000. The 2nd Maintenance Order ceases to apply with effect from 1 January 2000. Wife is entitled to 15% of the net gain from stock options. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
07 Feb 2001
AppellantWonAppeal allowed; the court found that the lower court applied overly stringent standards in dismissing the application to amend the notice of appeal.
24 Jul 2000
Petitioner, AppellantLostThe appellant's application to amend the Notice of Appeal was dismissed due to the long and unmitigated delay and the difficulty of seeking a division of shares the respondent did not possess.