Gina is a Legal Director at Kennedys Legal Solutions and a litigator with more than 14 years of experience and has been actively engaged in a wide spectrum of general, civil and commercial litigation, arbitration and advisory work.

She counts a diverse range of corporations, MNCs and business owners, and insurers as her clients whom she works with on matters including commercial disputes, company and shareholder disputes, employment law matters, and banking disputes. Alongside this, Gina has been endorsed and acknowledged as a leading legal practitioner by both her peers (internal and external) and mentors across the firm.

Gina has acted in numerous construction disputes for both public and private projects and developments, and adjudication proceedings under Singapore’s Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (“SOP Act”). She has given advice for contracts including PSSCOC and performance bonds. Pursuant to the Specialist Accreditation Scheme in Singapore in 2017, Gina became the first batch of 24 lawyers to gain accreditation as a Specialist in Building and Construction Law.

Work highlights

  • Representing a main contractor in proceedings involving novel issues before the Court of Appeal of an adjudicator’s duty to assess a sub-contractor’s claim under the SOP Act in the absence of payment response from a main contractor. The claim was in the region of SGD 2 million.
  • Representing a listed Malaysian company in relation to a fraud perpetrated by its former directors and employees in excess of MYR 44 million.
  • Representing subsidiary proprietors against a developer and their contractors in relation to alleged defects in a condominium. The case which went before the Court of Appeal involved novel issues such whether an architect and main contractor can rely on the independent contractors defence and whether subsidiary proprietors can be added in a claim in an ongoing action. The claim was in excess of SGD 33 million.
  • Representing an aircraft maintenance services company in an action against it by a kiosk operator at the airport arising from the company’s employee driving an airtug and colliding into a pillar of the airport. Issues relating to whether a duty of care was owed and whether the company was liable for economic losses were determined before the Court of Appeal.
  • Representing insurers against a claim of more than SGD 20 million by a family for alleged medical claims. Issues included the interpretation of the insurance policies and whether the family suffered from any pre-existing medical conditions.
  • Representing a subsidiary proprietor against a claim by her neighbour for alleged water seepage. Issues included whether the statutory presumption under Section 101(8)(a) of the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act 2004 applied.