Teleoptik-Ziroskopi

Teleoptik-Ziroskopi is a corporation in Singapore's legal system. The party has been involved in 4 cases in Singapore's courts. Represented by 15 counsels. Through 4 law firms. They have been involved in 4 complex cases, representing 100.0% of their total caseload.

Legal Representation

Teleoptik-Ziroskopi has been represented by 4 law firms and 15 counsels.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Counsels
Rajah & Tann LLP	1 case	Lee Eng Beng Avinash Pradhan Paul Tan Francis Xavier Sarah Hew Sarah Lim
Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP	1 case	Francis Xavier SC Tng Sheng Rong Amy Seow Ang Tze Phern Joseph Lau
Gabriel Law Corporation	1 case	Gabriel Peter Govindarajan Asokan
Damodara Hazra LLP	1 case	Clement Ong Ziying Suresh Damodara

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Teleoptik-Ziroskopi's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 6.5
Complex Cases: 4 (100.0%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Dismissed	17.0 parties avg	7.0	25.0%
Lost	26.5 parties avg	6.5	50.0%
Partial	16.0 parties avg	6.0	25.0%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2016	17.0 parties avg	7.0
2015	17.0 parties avg	7.0
2012	16.0 parties avg	6.0
2011	16.0 parties avg	6.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Teleoptik-Ziroskopi's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Dismissed	1(25.0%)	25.0%
Lost	2(50.0%)	50.0%
Partial	1(25.0%)	25.0%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	0.00	0.001 cases	1

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2016	1 1	Dismissed: 1 cases (100.0%)
2015	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2012	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)
2011	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 4 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Role	Outcome
1	2016-sgca-51 30 Aug 2016	30 Aug 2016	Appellant, Respondent	DismissedClaim to beneficial ownership in the Funds was dismissed.
2	2015-sghc-143 26 May 2015	26 May 2015	Defendant	LostThe court found that the Other Parties failed to discharge their legal burden to demonstrate their ownership.
3	2012-sgca-8 30 Jan 2012	30 Jan 2012	Appellant	PartialAppeal allowed to the extent that the garnishee orders absolute were set aside.
4	2011-sghc-123 18 May 2011	18 May 2011	Other	LostThe court found that the funds were not held in trust for Teleoptik-Ziroskopi. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.