Tommy Thomas @ Mohan A/L K. Thomas v Sharil @ Shahrir Bin Ab Samad

Court of Appeal · · Civil Procedure

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: This digest provides AI-generated summaries of recent Malaysian legal judgments and is provided for general informational purposes only. The digest may contain errors, omissions, or inaccuracies, and does not constitute legal advice or a substitute for legal counsel. For complete and authoritative information, always consult a qualified legal professional and refer to official court sources (here) or the full text of original judgments. The providers of this digest accept no responsibility or liability for any loss and/or damage resulting from reliance on its contents.

Tommy Thomas @ Mohan A/L K. Thomas v Sharil @ Shahrir Bin Ab Samad
CourtCourt of Appeal
Judgment Date4 July 2025
Date Uploaded8 July 2025
Legal TopicsCivil Procedure
Parties

Appellant(s): Tommy Thomas @ Mohan A/L K. Thomas

Respondent(s): Sharil @ Shahrir Bin Ab Samad

Bench
  • YA Datuk Supang Lian
  • YA Dato' Faizah Binti Jamaludin
  • YA Dato' Ahmad Fairuz bin Zainol Abidin
Facts & Background
  • The appellant appealed against the High Court's dismissal of his application for the judge to recuse herself from hearing the respondent's civil suit.
  • The respondent's suit against the appellant, a former Attorney General/Public Prosecutor, was for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office, arising from a money laundering charge preferred by the appellant, which later resulted in the respondent's discharge amounting to acquittal.
  • The appellant sought the judge's recusal after the High Court dismissed his application to strike out the respondent's suit, alleging that the judge's grounds for dismissing the striking-out application indicated predetermination and bias.
Issues for the Court
  • Whether the High Court Judge's findings and observations in her judgment dismissing the striking-out application gave rise to a "real danger of bias."
  • Whether the High Court Judge erred by making unsubstantiated determinations on the merits of the respondent's case and the weight of evidence during a striking-out application.
  • Whether the High Court Judge's summary of the respondent's pleadings and the appellant's book contents was accurate and within the proper scope of a striking-out application.
Decision
  • The Court applied the "real danger of bias test," which asks whether a fair-minded and informed bystander would entertain a fear of real danger of bias.
  • The Court found that the High Court Judge's findings in the striking-out judgment were not based on what was actually pleaded by the respondent or written in the appellant's book, and erroneously concluded that essential elements of malicious prosecution were pleaded.
  • The Court held that the High Court Judge's statements revealed views on the merits of the respondent's case and the weight of evidence, which exceeded the proper scope of a striking-out application, thus affirmatively answering the test for real danger of bias.
  • The appeal was allowed, and the High Court Judge was ordered to recuse herself from all future proceedings and the trial in the civil suit.
Link to JudgmentView Full Judgment

Related judgments

📬 Found this useful?

Get daily AI-generated summaries of Malaysian legal judgments from the Federal Court and the Court of Appeal straight to your inbox, free!