Tamar Perry
Tamar Perry is a individual in Singapore's legal system. The party has been involved in 5 cases in Singapore's courts. Represented by 6 counsels. Through 2 law firms. They have been involved in 5 complex cases, representing 100.0% of their total caseload.
Legal Representation
Tamar Perry has been represented by 2 law firms and 6 counsels.
| Law Firm | Cases Handled |
|---|---|
| Premier Law LLC | 2 cases |
| New Square Chambers | 1 case |
Case Complexity Analysis
Analysis of Tamar Perry's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.
Complexity Overview
- Average Parties per Case
- 4.0
- Complex Cases
- 5 (100.0%)
- Cases with more than 3 parties
Complexity by Case Type
| Type | Cases |
|---|---|
| Lost | 44.0 parties avg |
| Partial | 14.0 parties avg |
Complexity Trends Over Time
| Year | Cases |
|---|---|
| 2023 | 14.0 parties avg |
| 2022 | 24.0 parties avg |
| 2021 | 14.0 parties avg |
| 2020 | 14.0 parties avg |
Case Outcome Analytics
Analysis of Tamar Perry's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.
Outcome Distribution
| Outcome Type | Cases |
|---|---|
| Lost | 4(80.0%) |
| Partial | 1(20.0%) |
Monetary Outcomes
| Currency | Average |
|---|---|
| SGD | 414,355.203 cases |
Yearly Outcome Trends
| Year | Total Cases |
|---|---|
| 2023 | 1 1 |
| 2022 | 1 2 |
| 2021 | 1 1 |
| 2020 | 1 1 |
Case History
Displaying all 5 cases
| Case | Role | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
01 Mar 2023 | Appellant, Plaintiff | LostAppeal dismissed; appellants ordered to pay the respondents’ costs fixed at $150,000 (all-in). Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
28 Aug 2022 | Plaintiff, Defendant in Counterclaim | LostPlaintiffs to pay the sum of S$1,093,065.60 by way of costs and disbursements. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
14 Jul 2022 | Plaintiff, Defendant in Counterclaim | LostClaim dismissed; required to pay damages under cross-undertaking (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
18 Oct 2021 | Appellant, Applicant | LostAppeal dismissed; the CPO and CLPA claims did not fall within the ambit of the Court’s interpleader jurisdiction, and there was no basis to permit the joinder of LG Ltd. Similarly, the consequential relief sought in the form of adding the IRDA claim to the pleadings fell away given the failure of the substantive appeal. Therefore, OS 16 was also dismissed. |
29 Oct 2020 | Plaintiff | PartialLeave to amend the Writ and Statement of Claim was not granted in certain respects. |