Oommen Koshy Partner

Contact
T +603 2081 3999 ext 899
E koshy@skrine.com
 

Overview


Oommen is approaching 30 years of practice, primarily in the litigation arena. His practice includes Banking and Finance Litigation and of note is his experience in Islamic Finance disputes. He has been involved in a number of landmark cases amongst which are in relation to Islamic Finance, defamation and court-related arbitration proceedings.

 

Key Practice Areas

  • Banking and Finance Litigation
  • Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
  • Civil Litigation
 

  • Appeared for the Bank before the Supreme Court in the case of Adnan bin Omar v Bank Islam Malaysia Berhad [Civil Appeal No. 02-390-1994] which dealt with the procedure to be applied in an Order for Sale application in Islamic Banking cases. The appellate court upheld the High Court decision which granted an Order for Sale to the Bank. This was the first Islamic Banking case before the Supreme Court.
  • Appeared for the Bank before the Court of Appeal in the case of Bank Islam Malaysia Berhad v Lim Kok Hoe & Anor and Other Appeals [2009] 6 CLJ 22 which dealt with the validity of Bai Bithaman Ajil contracts. The appellate court reversed the High Court decision which held that the contracts were null and void.
  • Appeared for the Bank before the Court of Appeal in the case of Bank Islam Malaysia Berhad v Azhar bin Osman [Civil Appeal No. W-02-751-2010] which dealt with the quantum of the Bank’s claim. The appellate court reversed the High Court decision which held that the Bank must grant a rebate for “unearned profit”. The appellate court held that the Bank is entitled to claim the outstanding Sale Price under the contract.

  • Appeared for the Appellant before the Federal Court in CTI Group Inc. v International Bulk Carriers SPA [2017] 5 MLJ 314 which dealt with the issue of whether in the two-stage process for the enforcement of arbitral awards as contained in ss 38 and 39 of the Arbitration Act, a party seeking to set aside an Order made under s 38 can apply to set it aside under that very section on the ground that there was no arbitration agreement in existence between the parties. The Federal Court allowed the appeal and held that the party must apply to set that Order aside under s 39.

  • Appeared for the Respondent before the Federal Court in Lee Yoke Yam v Chin Ken Seng [2013] 1 MLJ 145 which dealt with the issue of whether there was absolute privilege to statements made in a police report. The Federal Court upheld the High Court and the Court of Appeal decisions that there was absolute privilege to statements made in a police report and therefore could not be subject to a defamation action.

Qualifications:
  • KLRCA Certificate Programme in Sports Arbitration (2016)
  • Advocate and Solicitor, High Court of Malaya (1990)
  • Barrister-at-Law (Inner Temple) (1989)
  • B.A. (Hons) Law, University of Kent (1988)
Professional Affiliations:
  • Vice President, Malaysia Inner Temple Alumni Association 
  • Panel Member, Malaysian Medical Council Disciplinary Board
  • Panel Member, Investigating Tribunal, Legal Professional Disciplinary Board
  • Panel Member, Compensation Fund, Legal Profession Act
  • Vice President, Kuala Lumpur Hockey Association
  • Chairman, Legal and Rules Committee, Kuala Lumpur Hockey Association
  • Member, Disciplinary Board, Kuala Lumpur Hockey Association
  • Member, Bar Council (2005/6)
  • Member, Legal Committee, Malaysian Hockey Federation (2002/5)
  • Honorary Secretary, Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee (2002/4)
  • Member, Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee (1998/2004)

  • Author, Licence to Defame – The Sequel?,  Skrine’s Legal Insights, 2017.
  • Author, Mandatory Rebate Upon Early Termination of BBA Contracts, Skrine’s Legal Insights, 2010.
  • Author, Court of Appeal upholds validity of BBA, Skrine’s Legal Insights, 2009.