Michael Vaz Lorrain

Michael Vaz Lorrain is a individual in Singapore's legal system. The party has been involved in 3 cases in Singapore's courts. Represented by 2 counsels. Through 1 law firm. Their track record shows a 66.7% success rate in resolved cases. They have been involved in 1 complex case, representing 33.3% of their total caseload.

Legal Representation

Michael Vaz Lorrain has been represented by 1 law firm and 2 counsels.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Counsels
Bih Li & Lee LLP	3 cases	Lee Hwee Khiam Anthony Huineng Clement Chen

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Michael Vaz Lorrain's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 3.0
Complex Cases: 1 (33.3%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	15.0 parties avg	5.0	33.3%
Won	22.0 parties avg	2.0	66.7%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2020	22.0 parties avg	2.0
2019	15.0 parties avg	5.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Michael Vaz Lorrain'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
2020	1 2	Won: 2 cases (200.0%)
2019	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 3 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Role	Outcome
1	2020-sgca-114 19 Nov 2020	19 Nov 2020	Appellant, Defendant	WonAppeal allowed. The Judge’s award of $8,100 in damages is set aside and nominal damages of $1,000 is awarded to SRA. Mr Vaz is entitled to the Post-OTS Costs on an indemnity basis to the extent set out at [82] above. Unless the parties are able to come to an agreement within 14 days of the date of this judgment, we remit the issue of the quantum of the Post-OTS Costs to the Judge. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
2	2020-sgca-72 19 Jul 2020	19 Jul 2020	Appellant, Defendant	WonThe court held that SRA's acceptance of the OTS on 5 May 2020 was not valid.
3	2019-sghc-13 23 Jan 2019	23 Jan 2019	Defendant	LostMr Vaz, Mr Yap and Mr Chen are to pay SRA damages in the amount equivalent to the legal fees and disbursements incurred by SRA in investigating and responding to the conspiracy, such fees and disbursements to be taxed if not agreed. The currency is assumed to be SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.