GAMMERLITE SDN BHD 1. ) JAMBATAN KEDUA SDN BHD 2. ) CIMB BANK BERHAD

GAMMERLITE SDN BHD 1. ) JAMBATAN KEDUA SDN BHD 2. ) CIMB BANK BERHAD

The performance bond was an on‑demand and unconditional guarantee payable on first written demand; the Plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case of unconscionability or other exceptional grounds to restrain payment; therefore the demand was lawful and the injunction and originating summons were dismissed with costs.

Citation
WA-24C-22-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Gammerlite Sdn Bhd; 1st Defendant: Jambatan Kedua Sdn Bhd; 2nd Defendant: CIMB Bank Berhad
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
5 July 2024
Case Number
WA-24C-22-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons / High Court Judgment on Originating Summons and Inter Partes Injunction (dismissed)
Outcome
Enclosure 1 and Enclosure 2 dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Performance Bond, Bank Guarantee, On‑demand Guarantee, Unconscionability, Injunction, Liquidated Damages, Adjudication, Adequacy of Damages
Source Language
Malay/English
Construction Law Contract Law Banking Law Civil Procedure Adjudication Law Performance Bond Bank Guarantee On‑demand Guarantee +5 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gammerlite Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff

Jambatan Kedua Sdn Bhd

1st Defendant

CIMB Bank Berhad

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons / High Court Judgment on Originating Summons and Inter Partes Injunction (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the demand on the performance bond was null, void or unconscionable
  2. 2 Whether the performance bond was an on‑demand and unconditional guarantee
  3. 3 Whether issuance of a Certificate of Completion was a precondition to calling the bond

Ratio Decidendi

The performance bond was an on‑demand and unconditional guarantee payable on first written demand; the Plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case of unconscionability or other exceptional grounds to restrain payment; therefore the demand was lawful and the injunction and originating summons were dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Enclosure 1 and Enclosure 2 dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Enclosure 1 dismissed with costs
  • Enclosure 2 (inter partes injunction) dismissed with costs