United Overseas Bank Limited

United Overseas Bank Limited is a corporation in Singapore's legal system. The party has been involved in 22 cases in Singapore's courts. Represented by 38 counsels. Through 10 law firms. Their track record shows a 50.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have been involved in 7 complex cases, representing 31.8% of their total caseload.

Legal Representation

United Overseas Bank Limited has been represented by 10 law firms and 38 counsels.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Counsels
Rajah & Tann LLP	1 case	Lee Eng Beng Sim Kwan Kiat Chong Kah Kheng
Shook Lin & Bok LLP	1 case	Ng Yeow Khoon Ho Wei Liang Sherman
KhattarWong LLP	1 case	Ng Yeow Khoon Ushan Premaratne Kenneth Yap
Rajah and Tann Singapore LLP	1 case	Sim Kwan Kiat Chew Ming Hsien Rebecca Ang Siok Hoon
Rajah & Tann	1 case	Andrew Ong Kendall Tan
Tan Kok Quan Partnership	2 cases	Ng Ka Luon Eddee Leong Qianyu Ang Wee Tiong Alcina Lynn Chew Aiping Alcina Chew Natalie Ng Hai Qi Seah Zhen Wei Paul Chan Yi Zhang Bertrice Hsu Thaddaeus Tan Kang Weisheng Geraint Edward Aditi Ravi Eddee Ng Lau Qiuyu Sherlene Goh Kang Weisheng Geraint Edward Cheryl Nah Ho Xin Ling
Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP	1 case	Chew Ming Hsien Rebecca Patrick Ang Ryan Loh Chin Leong Edwin Cheng Yeo Jianhao Mitchell
Allen & Gledhill LLP	1 case	Song Swee Lian Corina Parveen Kaur
Ng Chong & Hue LLC	1 case	Low Yew Shen
William Lai & Alan Wong	1 case	Chee Yong En

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of United Overseas Bank Limited's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 3.5
Complex Cases: 7 (31.8%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	54.8 parties avg	4.8	22.7%
Neutral	33.3 parties avg	3.3	13.6%
Partial	24.0 parties avg	4.0	9.1%
Won	112.8 parties avg	2.8	50.0%
	13.0 parties avg	3.0	4.5%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2022	14.0 parties avg	4.0
2021	14.0 parties avg	4.0
2020	22.5 parties avg	2.5
2019	23.0 parties avg	3.0
2018	22.0 parties avg	2.0
2017	44.8 parties avg	4.8
2016	25.5 parties avg	5.5
2015	22.0 parties avg	2.0
2012	15.0 parties avg	5.0
2010	14.0 parties avg	4.0
2007	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2003	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2001	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2000	12.0 parties avg	2.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of United Overseas Bank Limited's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	5(22.7%)	22.7%
Neutral	3(13.6%)	13.6%
Partial	2(9.1%)	9.1%
Won	11(50.0%)	50.0%
	1(4.5%)	4.5%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	390,214.86	30,016.5313 cases	13
USD	575,040.65	287,520.332 cases	2

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2022	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)
2021	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)
2020	2 11	Won: 1 cases (50.0%) : 1 cases (50.0%)
2019	2 11	Neutral: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2018	1 2	Won: 2 cases (200.0%)
2017	2 22	Lost: 2 cases (100.0%) Won: 2 cases (100.0%)
2016	2 11	Neutral: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2015	1 2	Won: 2 cases (200.0%)
2012	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2010	1 1	Neutral: 1 cases (100.0%)
2007	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2003	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2001	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2000	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 22 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Role	Outcome
1	2022-sghca-38 27 Oct 2022	27 Oct 2022	Appellant, Plaintiff	PartialAppeal allowed in part; Lippo is liable to pay damages to UOB, the quantum of which will be determined at the assessment of damages. UOB awarded 70% of the costs of the appeal which we assess to be $70,000. 70% of that is $49,000. This does not include disbursements of the appeal for which UOB claims $45,256.04 because of voluminous documents. However, a substantial part of the documents was not necessary for CA 67 as they were repeat documents which were common to the purchasers. UOB should have sought directions whether they could have used sample documents instead. In the circumstances, this court awards UOB $10,000 for disbursements of the appeal. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
2	2021-sghc-283 07 Dec 2021	07 Dec 2021	Plaintiff	PartialClaims against the first defendant, Lippo Marina Collection Pte Ltd, were dismissed. Claims against the second and third defendants, Goh Buck Lim and Aurellia Adrianus Ho, succeeded. Damages arising from the successful claims in deceit against them remain to be assessed. (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore)
3	2020-sghc-275 29 Dec 2020	29 Dec 2020	Defendant	WonJudgment in favour of the defendant. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
4	2020-sgca-79 16 Aug 2020	16 Aug 2020	Defendant	Unknown
5	2019-sghc-267 11 Nov 2019	11 Nov 2019	Defendant	NeutralThe second defendant took no position and indicated that it would comply with any order that the court made.
6	2019-sghcr-3 23 Jan 2019	23 Jan 2019	Plaintiff	WonJudgment for the Plaintiff; the court ruled in favor of UOB, finding that UOB was not bound by the third tenancy agreement and was entitled to possession of the property (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
7	2018-sghc-197 06 Sep 2018	06 Sep 2018	Plaintiff	WonThe court ordered that the deposit forfeited in the present case by the Sheriff from the earlier abortive sale of the Vessel to VML should be treated as part of the proceeds of sale of the Vessel. As there were no other claimants before the court other than the Plaintiff, and as the judgment sum exceeded the aggregate of the said proceeds of sale and the forfeited deposit, I ordered that the forfeited deposit be paid out to the Plaintiff in the same manner as the said proceeds of sale. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
8	2018-sghc-79 02 Apr 2018	02 Apr 2018	Defendant, Appellant	WonThe defendant's appeal was allowed, reversing the order setting aside the statutory demand.
9	2017-sgca-62 08 Nov 2017	08 Nov 2017	Respondent, Plaintiff	WonAppeal upheld; UOB awarded costs of $20,000 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
10	2017-sghc-140 14 Jun 2017	14 Jun 2017	Plaintiff	LostAppeal dismissed; litigation privilege in the Affidavit subsists and was not waived.
11	2017-sghc-66 30 Mar 2017	30 Mar 2017	Plaintiff, Respondent	WonAppeal allowed; costs of the appeal fixed at $2,500 with reasonable disbursements to be paid by Mr Pereira to UOB. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
12	2017-sghcr-1 18 Jan 2017	18 Jan 2017	Plaintiff	LostThe plaintiff's request for specific discovery of the Affidavit was denied.
13	2016-sghc-74 18 Apr 2016	18 Apr 2016	Defendant	NeutralThe bank was required to comply with the discovery order, with the costs of compliance to be borne by the plaintiff.
14	2016-sghc-23 21 Feb 2016	21 Feb 2016	Plaintiff, Appellant	WonAppeal allowed; both applications (determination of law and striking out) granted. Costs of $5,000 awarded to the plaintiff (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
15	2015-sgca-66 26 Nov 2015	26 Nov 2015	Respondent	WonAppeal dismissed; Bombay Talkies to pay United Overseas Bank costs fixed at $20,000 inclusive of disbursements. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
16	2015-sghc-142 25 May 2015	25 May 2015	Plaintiff	WonWinding-up order granted in favour of the Plaintiff. The judgment does not specify a currency, so SGD is assumed as the jurisdiction is Singapore.
17	2012-sgca-27 17 Apr 2012	17 Apr 2012	Respondent	LostAppeal dismissed, injunction restraining the Banks from making payment to Master Marine AS under the New Demand discharged. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
18	2010-sghc-48 08 Feb 2010	08 Feb 2010	Garnishee	NeutralUOB was ordered to pay to Focus Energy US$15,040.65 and S$312,181.80.
19	2007-sgca-50 30 Oct 2007	30 Oct 2007	Appellant	LostAppeal dismissed with costs. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
20	2003-sghc-246 19 Oct 2003	19 Oct 2003	Petitioner	WonBankruptcy petition granted against the debtor for the sum of $10,885.94 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
21	2001-sghc-6 07 Jan 2001	07 Jan 2001	Appellant	LostThe appeal against the setting aside of the joint statutory demand was dismissed.
22	2000-sghc-191 18 Sep 2000	18 Sep 2000	Plaintiff	WonJudgment for the Plaintiff; damages awarded in the amount of $560,000 (USD). This amount includes damages for detention at US$400 per day from 1 September 1998 up to the date of judgment (US$300,000), the value of the vessel as of the date of judgment (US$270,000), less the estimated cost of paying the crew to sail the Vessel back to Singapore and other expenses (US$10,000). The currency is assumed to be USD as the damages were calculated in USD.