1. ) SINOPEC ENGINEERING (GROUP) CO LTD 2. ) SINOPEC ENGINEERING GROUP MALAYSIA SDN BHD v PENGERANG REFINING COMPANY SDN BHD

wa-24carb-38-06-2024 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 23 March 2025 • WA-24C(ARB)-38-06/2024 • 1 min read

Outcome

In conclusion, based on my grounds above, I hold that as I have found the Defendant being prima facie proven to be attributable to the delays which may disentitle the Defendant to Delay Damage, I hereby grant the Injunction sought for and that the Demand on the PB is invalid and of no effect. [58] Accordingly, I grant Order In Terms for prayers 2, 3 and 5 of Enclosure 1.

Quoted verbatim from the judgment of High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) (wa-24carb-38-06-2024). Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal for the complete decision.

Catchwords

Enclosure 1 & 31. There is before this Court 2 enclosures which were heard together being enclosure 1 (Enclosure 1) which is the Plaintiff’s Ex-Parte application pursuant to amongst others section 11 of the Arbitration Act 2005 to injunct the Defendant or its servants or agents from making a demand under the Performance Bond No. 99140BGJ6951453 dated 26.8.2014 (“PB”) and enclosure 31 (Enclosure 31) which is inter alia the Defendant’s application to set aside under Order 29 rule 1 and Order 32 rule 6 and/or Order 42 rule 13 and/or Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 the Ex-Parte Order dated 10.6.2024 (“Ex-Parte Order”) granted to the Plaintiff’s and if allowed to assess damages thereto.

Practice Areas

Arbitration Civil Procedure

Judges (1)

Nadzarin bin Wok Nordin Delivered

Counsel (3)

Baskaran Firm Ng Faye Xiang Counsel Plaintiff Thayananthan Baskaran Counsel Plaintiff

Parties (3)

PENGERANG REFINING COMPANY Sdn Bhd Respondent SINOPEC ENGINEERING CO LTD Applicant SINOPEC ENGINEERING GROUP MALAYSIA Sdn Bhd Applicant

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (wa-24carb-38-06-2024)