T

Tharrence Anthony

Shafee & Co. Called to the Bar in 2025 3 appearances

About Tharrence Anthony

Tharrence Anthony appears as counsel of record in 3 reported Malaysia judgments (2025). These were heard before MYFC (3).

On the court record

Engages the role of the Attorney General in judicial review and fresh evidence on appeal, and the law of banking confidentiality — the source and strictness of a bank's duty under the common law and BAFIA.

Tharrence Anthony's appearances in this corpus are in the Federal Court (Mahkamah Persekutuan), in public and banking law. In one matter he acted as counsel for the respondent in a judicial-review appeal concerning the role of the Attorney General (Peguam Negara Malaysia). The questions arose at the leave stage of judicial review under Order 53 rule 3(3) of the Rules of Court 2012: whether the Attorney General has a duty to confirm or disclose documents, where the burden of proof lies in respect of disputed evidence, and the distinction between the Attorney General's procedural role and his role as a respondent. A connected question concerned fresh evidence at the appellate stage under rule 7(3A) of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 — whether that rule codifies or displaces the test in Ladd v Marshall, and the threshold between evidence of "determining influence" and evidence of merely "important influence".

In a second Federal Court matter he acted as counsel for the respondent in a banking dispute concerning the duty of confidentiality owed by a bank to its customer. The court examined the bank–customer relationship and the implied contractual term of confidentiality, alongside the statutory duty under section 97(1) of the Banking and Financial Institutions Act (BAFIA). The central question was whether a bank is liable for the disclosure of customer information by rogue employees — that is, whether the duty of confidentiality and banking secrecy is strict or fault-based, and how the common-law duty relates to the statutory duty. Named parties included a bank and corporate customers.

Across these matters, Tharrence Anthony's practice engages the constitutional and procedural role of the Attorney General in judicial review and the admission of fresh evidence on appeal, and the law of banking confidentiality — the source and strictness of a bank's duty to keep its customers' information secret under the common law and BAFIA.

3
Appearances
2025
Year of Call
1
Firm
No
Senior Counsel

How many cases has Tharrence Anthony appeared in?

Tharrence Anthony appears as counsel of record in 3 reported Malaysia judgments (2025).

Which courts does Tharrence Anthony appear in?

Tharrence Anthony appears before MYFC (3).

What questions arose about the Attorney General in the judicial-review appeal?

Whether the Attorney General has a duty to confirm or disclose documents at the leave stage under Order 53 rule 3(3), where the burden lies on disputed evidence, and the distinction between his procedural and respondent roles — together with fresh evidence under rule 7(3A) and its relationship to Ladd v Marshall.

What did the banking-confidentiality appeal decide?

It examined whether a bank is liable for the disclosure of customer information by rogue employees — whether the duty of confidentiality, arising as an implied contractual term and under section 97(1) of BAFIA, is strict or fault-based, and how the common-law and statutory duties relate.

Practice Areas (from case appearances)

Counsel Respondent (3)