Teo Hee Lai Building Construction Pte Ltd

Teo Hee Lai Building Construction Pte Ltd is a corporation in Singapore's legal system. The party has been involved in 11 cases in Singapore's courts. Represented by 4 counsels. Through 2 law firms. Their track record shows a 54.5% success rate in resolved cases. They have been involved in 7 complex cases, representing 63.6% of their total caseload.

Legal Representation

Teo Hee Lai Building Construction Pte Ltd has been represented by 2 law firms and 4 counsels.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Counsels
Ling Das & Partners	2 cases	Thulasidas s/o Rengasamy Suppramaniam S Thulasidas S Thulasidass
Independent Practitioner	1 case	Teo Hee Lai

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Teo Hee Lai Building Construction Pte Ltd's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 3.5
Complex Cases: 7 (63.6%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	13.0 parties avg	3.0	9.1%
Neutral	44.0 parties avg	4.0	36.4%
Won	63.3 parties avg	3.3	54.5%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2013	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2009	24.0 parties avg	4.0
2008	44.0 parties avg	4.0
2007	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2003	14.0 parties avg	4.0
2002	23.0 parties avg	3.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Teo Hee Lai Building Construction Pte Ltd's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	1(9.1%)	9.1%
Neutral	4(36.4%)	36.4%
Won	6(54.5%)	54.5%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	7,300.00	811.119 cases	9

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2013	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2009	1 2	Won: 2 cases (200.0%)
2008	1 4	Neutral: 4 cases (400.0%)
2007	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2003	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2002	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 11 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Role	Outcome
1	2013-sghc-200 07 Oct 2013	07 Oct 2013	Defendant, Respondent	WonThe court upheld the original decision.
2	2009-sghc-129 26 May 2009	26 May 2009	Defendant, Respondent	WonCosts of $1,300 awarded to the second defendant. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
3	2009-sghc-71 24 Mar 2009	24 Mar 2009	Defendant	WonPlaintiffs ordered to pay costs to the defendant (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
4	2008-sghc-200 09 Nov 2008	09 Nov 2008	Defendant	NeutralNo specific outcome mentioned for this party in this application. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
5	2008-sghc-84 04 Jun 2008	04 Jun 2008	Defendant	NeutralPrayer (i) of Summons 855/08 dismissed with costs. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
6	2008-sghc-63 28 Apr 2008	28 Apr 2008	Defendant	NeutralThe court declined to make any order of committal against the defendant.
7	2008-sghc-54 09 Apr 2008	09 Apr 2008	Defendant	NeutralThe matters in issue here do not concern the first defendant. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
8	2007-sghc-29 27 Feb 2007	27 Feb 2007	Defendant, Respondent	WonStay of proceedings granted in favour of arbitration (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
9	2003-sghc-64 23 Mar 2003	23 Mar 2003	Respondent	WonApplicants ordered to pay the costs of this application to the Second Respondent. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
10	2002-sgca-51 24 Nov 2002	24 Nov 2002	Respondent	LostAppeal dismissed with costs. The injunction restraining the appellants from making a demand under the performance bond was set aside. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
11	2002-sghc-139 04 Jul 2002	04 Jul 2002	Appellant	WonAppeal allowed and interim injunction restored. Costs awarded to the appellant in the amount of $6,000 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).