Parity Principle

Parity Principle is a specialized practice area in Singapore's legal system. This area encompasses 3 cases from 2015 to 2016.

Leading Law Firms

Analysis of law firms specializing in Parity Principle, ranked by case volume and success rates.

Law FirmCases
Attorney-General’s Chambers0.00% success rate2 cases66.7% of area
Allen & Gledhill LLP0.00% success rate1 cases33.3% of area
WongPartnership LLP100.00% success rate1 cases33.3% of area
Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP0.00% success rate1 cases33.3% of area
Trident Law Corporation100.00% success rate1 cases33.3% of area

Notable Lawyers

Leading lawyers practicing in Parity Principle, ranked by case volume and success rates.

LawyerCases
Tan Chee Meng100.00% success rate1 cases33.3% of area
Chan Tai-Hui Jason0.00% success rate1 cases33.3% of area
Tan Jia Wei Justin100.00% success rate1 cases33.3% of area
Nicholas Lai Yi Shin0.00% success rate1 cases33.3% of area
April Phang Suet Fern0.00% success rate1 cases33.3% of area
K. Muralidharan Pillai0.00% success rate1 cases33.3% of area
Tan Wen Hsien0.00% success rate1 cases33.3% of area
Josephine Choo100.00% success rate1 cases33.3% of area
Quek Jing Feng0.00% success rate1 cases33.3% of area
Sim Wei Na0.00% success rate1 cases33.3% of area

Recent Judgments

Displaying 3 most recent judgments out of 3 total cases

No.TitleCourtDecision DateOutcomes
1Chong Han Rui v Public Prosecutor: Parity Principle in Sentencing of Co-OffendersHigh Court of the Republic of Singapore25 Feb 2016
Appeal Allowed
2Lim Bee Ngan Karen v PP: Parity Principle & Sentencing for Betting Act OffencesHigh Court15 Jul 2015
Appeal allowed in part. The imprisonment terms for the Third to the Fifth Proceeded Charges were replaced with an imprisonment term of four months for each of these three Proceeded Charges. The imprisonment terms for the Third Proceeded Charge and the Fifth Proceeded Charge are to run consecutively, making a total imprisonment term of eight months for the Third to the Fifth Proceeded Charges. The fines imposed by the Sentencing Judge for all five Proceeded Charges as well as the default imprisonment terms in respect of those fines were upheld.
3Boustead Singapore Ltd v Arab Banking Corp: Fraud, Demand Guarantees & UnconscionabilityHigh Court10 Mar 2015
Judgment for Plaintiff; ABC is injuncted from receiving payment from Boustead under the facility agreement demand and is injuncted from making payment to BCD on BCD’s counter-guarantee demands. The event-of-default notice is invalid.