EXPRO MARINE SDN. BHD. AMALGAMATED PLANT ENGINEERING SDN. BHD.

EXPRO MARINE SDN. BHD. AMALGAMATED PLANT ENGINEERING SDN. BHD.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal because the defendant's termination letter did not render the applicant's prayers for preservation of status quo academic as the validity of termination is a live controversy for the arbitrator; s.11 AA2005 empowers the court to grant interim measures pending arbitration; the undertaking as to damages given by the applicant was sufficient in the circumstances and the High Court erred by imposing an onerous requirement to prove means without specifying sufficiency; damages were not an adequate remedy given potential irreparable consequences; balance of convenience favored preserving status quo. Costs fixed at RM10,000.

Citation
Q-02(A)-26-01/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Applicant/appellant: EXPRO MARINE SDN BHD; Respondent: AMALGAMATED PLANT ENGINEERING SDN BHD
Court
A
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
27 May 2021
Case Number
Q-02(A)-26-01/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court decision set aside in part; injunctive reliefs to preserve status quo pending arbitral determination; costs RM10,000 awarded to appellant subject to allocator.
Legal Topics
Interim Reliefs Under S.11 Arbitration Act 2005, Status Quo Injunctions, Undertaking as to Damages, Termination of Contract, Full and Frank Disclosure, Bona Fide Issues to Be Tried, Balance of Convenience
Source Language
Malay/English
Arbitration Civil Procedure Contract Law Specific Relief Injunctions Interim Reliefs Under S.11 Arbitration Act 2005 Status Quo Injunctions Undertaking as to Damages +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EXPRO MARINE SDN BHD

Applicant/appellant

AMALGAMATED PLANT ENGINEERING SDN BHD

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the originating summons for interim injunctive reliefs was rendered academic by the defendant's termination letter
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was required to apply ex parte under Order 29 r.1 ROC before seeking relief
  3. 3 Whether the undertaking as to damages given by the applicant was sufficient and whether applicant must prove means to satisfy it

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal because the defendant's termination letter did not render the applicant's prayers for preservation of status quo academic as the validity of termination is a live controversy for the arbitrator; s.11 AA2005 empowers the court to grant interim measures pending arbitration; the undertaking as to damages given by the applicant was sufficient in the circumstances and the High Court erred by imposing an onerous requirement to prove means without specifying sufficiency; damages were not an adequate remedy given potential irreparable consequences; balance of convenience favored preserving status quo. Costs fixed at RM10,000.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court decision set aside in part; injunctive reliefs to preserve status quo pending arbitral determination; costs RM10,000 awarded to appellant subject to allocator.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • High Court decision dismissing originating summons reversed in part