SATS SECURITY SERVICES PTE LTD

SATS SECURITY SERVICES PTE LTD is a corporation in Singapore's legal system. The party has been involved in 3 cases in Singapore's courts. Represented by 3 counsels. Through 1 law firm.

Legal Representation

SATS SECURITY SERVICES PTE LTD has been represented by 1 law firm and 3 counsels.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Counsels
Tan Kok Quan Partnership	2 cases	Paul Seah Zhen Wei Kang Weisheng Geraint Edward Rachel Chin

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of SATS SECURITY SERVICES PTE 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
Dismissed	13.0 parties avg	3.0	33.3%
Neutral	23.0 parties avg	3.0	66.7%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2018	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2017	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2015	13.0 parties avg	3.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of SATS SECURITY SERVICES PTE LTD's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Dismissed	1(33.3%)	33.3%
Neutral	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
2018	1 1	Neutral: 1 cases (100.0%)
2017	1 1	Neutral: 1 cases (100.0%)
2015	1 1	Dismissed: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 3 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Role	Outcome
1	2018-sgca-58 01 Oct 2018	01 Oct 2018	Third Party	NeutralSATS was a third party to the suit. Mr. Goel shall pay 80% of SATS’s costs incurred in the Third Party Proceedings on a standard basis on the High Court scale.
2	2017-sghc-43 08 Mar 2017	08 Mar 2017	Third Party	NeutralNo orders were made against SATS because Mr Goel did not sue it. The currency is assumed to be SGD, the currency of Singapore.
3	2015-sghc-289 03 Nov 2015	03 Nov 2015	Third Party	DismissedThe third party claim between the Casino and SATS is redundant because the Casino is only liable in these proceedings for the acts of its own employees and not the APOs, there is no basis for the Casino to claim an indemnity or contribution from SATS for any damages I may order against it.