Tong Tien See

Tong Tien See is a individual in Singapore's legal system. The party has been involved in 2 cases in Singapore's courts. Represented by 3 counsels. Through 2 law firms. They have been involved in 2 complex cases, representing 100.0% of their total caseload.

Legal Representation

Tong Tien See has been represented by 2 law firms and 3 counsels.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Counsels
Engelin Teh & Partners	2 cases	B M Singh Chan Jin Han Y R Jumabhoy
Independent Practitioner	1 case	Y R Jumabhoy

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Tong Tien See's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 14.0
Complex Cases: 2 (100.0%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	214.0 parties avg	14.0	100.0%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2001	214.0 parties avg	14.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Tong Tien See's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	2(100.0%)	100.0%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	106,600,000.00	53,300,000.002 cases	2

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2001	1 2	Lost: 2 cases (200.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 2 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Role	Outcome
1	2001-sghc-382 30 Dec 2001	30 Dec 2001	Defendant, Appellant	LostJudgment against the First Defendant for the loss/damage suffered by the Plaintiff company by reason of the conspiracy to injure by unlawful means in the sum of $53.3 million. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
2	2001-sghc-381 30 Dec 2001	30 Dec 2001	Defendant	LostJudgment against the first defendant for $53.3 million due to conspiracy to injure by unlawful means and breaches of fiduciary duty. Declaration that the first defendant was knowingly a party to the carrying on of the business of the plaintiff company with intent to defraud its creditors and that they were liable to the plaintiff company for the said $53.3m. (Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).