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.
Law Firm | Cases Handled |
---|---|
Sim Hill Tan & Wong | 1 case |
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
Type | Cases |
---|---|
Lost | 12.0 parties avg |
Partial | 22.0 parties avg |
Won | 12.0 parties avg |
Complexity Trends Over Time
Year | Cases |
---|---|
2002 | 12.0 parties avg |
2001 | 22.0 parties avg |
2000 | 12.0 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 Type | Cases |
---|---|
Lost | 1(25.0%) |
Partial | 2(50.0%) |
Won | 1(25.0%) |
Monetary Outcomes
Currency | Average |
---|---|
SGD | 3,000.001 cases |
Yearly Outcome Trends
Year | Total Cases |
---|---|
2002 | 1 1 |
2001 | 2 11 |
2000 | 1 1 |
Case History
Displaying all 4 cases
Case | Role | Outcome |
---|---|---|
15 Jan 2002 | Respondent, Appellant | PartialAppeal 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, Petitioner | PartialMaintenance 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 | Appellant | WonAppeal 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, Appellant | LostThe 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. |