Lutfi Salim bin Talib
Lutfi Salim bin Talib is a individual in Singapore's legal system. The party has been involved in 4 cases in Singapore's courts. Represented by 6 counsels. Through 2 law firms. Their track record shows a 25.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have been involved in 3 complex cases, representing 75.0% of their total caseload.
Legal Representation
Lutfi Salim bin Talib has been represented by 2 law firms and 6 counsels.
Law Firm | Cases Handled |
---|---|
LawCraft LLC | 1 case |
Drew & Napier LLC | 2 cases |
Case Complexity Analysis
Analysis of Lutfi Salim bin Talib's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.
Complexity Overview
- Average Parties per Case
- 6.5
- Complex Cases
- 3 (75.0%)
- Cases with more than 3 parties
Complexity by Case Type
Type | Cases |
---|---|
Neutral | 28.0 parties avg |
Partial | 13.0 parties avg |
Won | 17.0 parties avg |
Complexity Trends Over Time
Year | Cases |
---|---|
2024 | 25.5 parties avg |
2022 | 18.0 parties avg |
2019 | 17.0 parties avg |
Case Outcome Analytics
Analysis of Lutfi Salim bin Talib's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.
Outcome Distribution
Outcome Type | Cases |
---|---|
Neutral | 2(50.0%) |
Partial | 1(25.0%) |
Won | 1(25.0%) |
Monetary Outcomes
Currency | Average |
---|---|
SGD | 0.002 cases |
Yearly Outcome Trends
Year | Total Cases |
---|---|
2024 | 2 11 |
2022 | 1 1 |
2019 | 1 1 |
Case History
Displaying all 4 cases
Case | Role | Outcome |
---|---|---|
07 Aug 2024 | Respondent | NeutralApplication supported. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
24 Mar 2024 | Claimant | PartialAppeal allowed in part and dismissed in part; each party to bear its own costs. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
29 Sep 2022 | Respondent | NeutralThe judgment pertains to an interlocutory application and does not directly result in a 'Won' or 'Lost' outcome for this party. The outcome is therefore considered neutral. |
19 Nov 2019 | Respondent | WonThe court adopted the branch interpretation, which was advocated by this respondent. |