NTUC Foodfare Co-operative Ltd

NTUC Foodfare Co-operative Ltd is a corporation in Singapore's legal system. The party has been involved in 3 cases in Singapore's courts. Represented by 5 counsels. Through 1 law firm.

Legal Representation

NTUC Foodfare Co-operative Ltd has been represented by 1 law firm and 5 counsels.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Counsels
Straits Law Practice LLC	3 cases	N K Rajarh N. Sreenivasan SC N Sreenivasan Palaniappan Sundararaj Cheong Wei Yang Daryl

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of NTUC Foodfare Co-operative Ltd's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 3.0
Complex Cases: 0 (0.0%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	13.0 parties avg	3.0	33.3%
Partial	23.0 parties avg	3.0	66.7%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2018	23.0 parties avg	3.0
2017	13.0 parties avg	3.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of NTUC Foodfare Co-operative Ltd'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%
Partial	2(66.7%)	66.7%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	206,176.85	68,725.623 cases	3

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2018	1 2	Partial: 2 cases (200.0%)
2017	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 3 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Role	Outcome
1	2018-sgca-56 04 Sep 2018	04 Sep 2018	Appellant	PartialAppeal allowed in part; costs of the appeal fixed at $30,000 inclusive of disbursements, and 60% of its costs below, assessed on a standard basis, to be taxed on the District Court scale if not agreed. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
2	2018-sgca-41 18 Jul 2018	18 Jul 2018	Appellant	PartialAppeal allowed in part; judgment for the appellant in the amount of $176,176.85 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
3	2017-sghc-250 08 Oct 2017	08 Oct 2017	Plaintiff	LostThe plaintiff's claim was dismissed as the court found that the defendant did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff.