1. ) Sinopec Engineering (Group) Co Ltd v Pengerang Refining Company Sdn Bhd (WA-24C(ARB)-38-06/2024)

High Court of Malaysia24 Mar 2025

The written judgment as the court issued it, with the coram, case number, and source links. Every paragraph has its own anchor.

Open official source PDF Report an issue

Content

39 31 has not been proven, hereby dismisses the said enclosure 31 with costs in the cause. [57] 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

Dated: 24th day of March 2025 sgd. NADZARIN WOK NORDIN HIGH COURT JUDGE CONSTRUCTION COURT 1 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF: Thayananthan Baskaran and Ng Faye Xiang (Messrs Baskaran] S/N hRI/6d1j/kSWMVH1IynH2w

Something wrong on this page?

Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.

Report an issue Request removal

Malaysian judgment

Case metadata

Court: High Court of Malaysia
Decision date: 24 Mar 2025
Case number: WA-24C(ARB)-38-06/2024
Coram: YA Dato' Nadzarin Bin Wok Nordin
Practice area: 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
Version: Alasan Penghakiman 1
Published: 4 Jun 2025
Source ID: e93f1285-63dd-44fe-9631-51f52329c7db

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

Parties

1. ) SINOPEC ENGINEERING (GROUP) CO LTD - applicant - ejudgment_parties
2. ) SINOPEC ENGINEERING GROUP MALAYSIA SDN BHD - applicant - ejudgment_parties
PENGERANG REFINING COMPANY SDN BHD - respondent - ejudgment_parties

Primary source

Compare this reader text against the official judgment source.

Open source PDF

Catchwords