T
Tan Sri Tommy Thomas
About Tan Sri Tommy Thomas
Tan Sri Tommy Thomas has appeared as counsel in 2 judgments in the MY Case Law database, spanning July 2024 to March 2025. Role breakdown: counsel for appellant (2). Appearances span the Court of Appeal (1), Federal Court (1).
2
Appearances
1
Roles
2
Firms
No
Senior Counsel
How many court cases has Tan Sri Tommy Thomas appeared in?
Tan Sri Tommy Thomas has appeared in 2 published judgments from July 2024 to March 2025. Appearances span the Court of Appeal (1), Federal Court (1).
Practice Areas (from case appearances)
failure to obtain consent of the Minister of Finance under section 67 of the Insurance Act 1996 the repeal of the Insurance Act 1996 by the Financial Services Act 2013 whether relevant legislation is the statute in force at the time of entry into the agreement or at the time of performance of the agreement whether Bank Negara’s approval is equal to the approval by the Minister of Finance conditional contracts contingent contracts section 33 of the Contracts Act 1950 restitution pursuant to section 66 of the Contracts Act 1950 whether the agreements were void ab initio, but became void and unenforceable when the approval of the Minister of Finance was not obtained whether the agreements could become illegal in the course of performance, by reason of their being performed substantially or in part, without the fulfilment of the condition precedent whether specific performance is available the purpose and object of section 67 of the Insurance Act 1996 the consequences in law if an illegality arises in the course of performance the issue of the validity or enforceability of an agreement where an illegality arises by reason that the mode of performance adopted by the party performing it is in violation of a statute distinguish between a contract which has as its object an illegal act and a contract whose performance involves an illegal act 1 The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision that the Proposed Decision by Malaysian Competition Commission (MyCC) under Section 36 of the Competition Commission Act 2010 is subject to judicial review. Sections 35 to 40 of the Act do not provide a statutory appeal mechanism for a proposed decision under Section 36. MyCC’s investigation was procedurally improper due to a lack of proper notification and distinction between different complaints. Consequently, the judicial review was not premature, and the High Court’s decision to quash the proposed decision was upheld. 1
Counsel Appellant (2)
w-01a-425-08-2023 MYCOA
SURUHANJAYA PERSAINGAN MALAYSIA v 1. ) MYTEKSI SDN. BHD. 2. ) GRABCAR SDN. BHD. 3. ) GRAB INC.
18 March 2025
02f-40-07-2023w MYFC
1. ) DETIK RIA SDN. BHD. 2. ) TAN SRI DATUK ABDUL RAHIM BIN HAJI DIN v 1. ) PRUDENTIAL CORPORATION HOLDING LIMITED 2. ) THE PRUDENTIAL ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
29 July 2024