Pardeep handles high value and complex disputes spanning a wide range of areas, in both litigation and international arbitration.
He has handled construction and engineering disputes. He has also handled commercial disputes involving oil and gas, civil fraud, corporate/shareholder disputes, banking and financial services, as well as disputes involving professional negligence, public and administrative law, defamation, and employment law.
He is a member of the Law Society’s Criminal Legal Aid Scheme and undertakes pro-bono criminal work.
In 2008, Pardeep graduated with Honours from the National University of Singapore (NUS). While in NUS, Pardeep placed 2nd Runner Up in both the NUS Advocacy Cup and the Mallal Moots. He also represented NUS in the Jean-Pictet Competition International Humanitarian Law Moot Competition.
In 2012, Pardeep was a member of the Drew & Napier team which won the inaugural Essex Court Chambers-Singapore Academy of Law Moot Competition for Singapore lawyers.
In 2014, he obtained an LL.M. (Distinction) with a specialism in International Arbitration & Litigation from the University College London.
Pardeep is a co-author of the Chambers and Partners Global Practice Guides – Litigation 2019 (Singapore chapter).
Some of the matters that Pardeep has handled include the following:
1. Acted for an independent director of a Singapore-listed company, Airocean Group Limited, on his appeal against his conviction for alleged offences under the Securities and Futures Act for making false and misleading statements in a public announcement.
This was a landmark case on corporate disclosure obligations under the listing rules and securities laws and on the directors’ duties with respect to these corporate disclosure obligations (Madhavan Peter v PP and other appeals  4 SLR 613).
2. Acted for the Singapore Exchange Securities Trading Ltd on an application for judicial review of its decision to publicly reprimand a director of a Singapore-listed company.
This case raised for the first time the question of whether the Exchange’s decision to publicly reprimand a director of a public listed company could properly be characterised as a public function and consequently susceptible to judicial review (Yeap Wai Kong v Singapore Exchange Securities Trading Ltd  3 SLR 565).
3. Acted for the defendant in an appeal against his conviction, which raised for the first time the question of the procedure to be adopted in circumstances where it is said that the Prosecution has not complied with its duty (as established in Kadar) to disclose to the Defence unused material in its possession (Winston Lee Siew Boon v Public Prosecutor -  SGHC 186.
4. Acted for the Marina Bay Sands in a claim brought against it for an alleged wrongful termination of an agreement for the lease of certain premises. The claim against the Marina Bay Sands was struck out for the plaintiff’s failure to comply with a peremptory order (Kraze Entertainment (S) Pte Ltd v Marina Bay Sands Pte Ltd  SGHC 39).
The plaintiff then commenced a second claim against the Marina Bay Sands based on the same cause of action, which was also struck out for being an abuse of the process of the court (raze Entertainment (S) Pte Ltd v Marina Bay Sands Pte Ltd  1 SLR 78).
5. Acted for Sembcorp Marine Ltd in committal proceedings for an order that the defendant be committed to prison for contempt (Aurol Anthony Sabastian v Sembcorp Marine Ltd  SGCA 5).
This was a landmark case on criminal contempt. The Court of Appeal held that given the sui generis nature of criminal contempt, there was a compelling interest that the Attorney-General, as disinterested prosecutor, be consulted before a private party commenced proceedings for criminal contempt.
Singapore Business Review
Identified as one of Singapore’s 70 most influential lawyers aged 40 and under in 2016