JSNT2 SDN BHD 1. ) EXYTE MALAYSIA SDN BHD 2. ) BANK OF CHINA (MALAYSIA) BERHAD 3. ) CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK CORPORATION NANTONG BRANCH
On the facts the court accepted that the PB is an autonomous on‑demand bank guarantee and not security over the plaintiff’s property for purposes of s 410 CA 2016, but found that the 1st Defendant’s call on the PB in the circumstances was unconscionable; accordingly the court granted interim injunctive reliefs restraining payment under the PB and related enforcement of the counter‑guarantee and awarded costs of RM20000 against the 1st Defendant.
- Citation
- WA-24C-111-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: JSNT2 SDN BHD; 1st Defendant: EXYTE MALAYSIA SDN. BHD.; 2nd Defendant: BANK OF CHINA (MALAYSIA) BERHAD; 3rd Defendant: CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK CORPORATION NANTONG BRANCH
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Malaysia
- Judgment Date
- 18 January 2024
- Case Number
- WA-24C-111-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
- Procedural Posture
- Originating Summons (interim Injunctive Reliefs) / Interlocutory Judgment Granting Injunctions Pending Arbitration; Appeal Filed by 1st Defendant
- Outcome
- Plaintiff's interlocutory applications allowed; injunctive reliefs preserved pending arbitration; costs RM20,000 awarded to Plaintiff against 1st Defendant subject to allocatur; no costs against 2nd and 3rd Defendants (nominal).
- Legal Topics
- Performance Bond, On‑demand Bank Guarantee, Unconscionability, Judicial Management, Moratorium, Undue Preference, Interim Measures
- Source Language
- Malay/English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
JSNT2 SDN BHD
Plaintiff
EXYTE MALAYSIA SDN. BHD.
1st Defendant
BANK OF CHINA (MALAYSIA) BERHAD
2nd Defendant
CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK CORPORATION NANTONG BRANCH
3rd Defendant
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons (interim Injunctive Reliefs) / Interlocutory Judgment Granting Injunctions Pending Arbitration; Appeal Filed by 1st Defendant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the performance bond (PB) constitutes security over the plaintiff’s property within s 410 Companies Act 2016
- 2 Whether beneficiary’s call on PB during pendency of judicial management application requires leave of court under s 410 CA 2016
- 3 Whether the 1st Defendant’s call on the PB was unconscionable such that the court should restrain payment under the Arbitration Act 2005 s 11
Ratio Decidendi
On the facts the court accepted that the PB is an autonomous on‑demand bank guarantee and not security over the plaintiff’s property for purposes of s 410 CA 2016, but found that the 1st Defendant’s call on the PB in the circumstances was unconscionable; accordingly the court granted interim injunctive reliefs restraining payment under the PB and related enforcement of the counter‑guarantee and awarded costs of RM20000 against the 1st Defendant.
Court Disposition
Plaintiff's interlocutory applications allowed; injunctive reliefs preserved pending arbitration; costs RM20,000 awarded to Plaintiff against 1st Defendant subject to allocatur; no costs against 2nd and 3rd Defendants (nominal).
Orders
- Grant injunction restraining 1st Defendant from receiving the sum of RM24,828,868.80 or equivalent under the Performance Bond pending disposal of the arbitral proceedings (prayer A(2))
- Grant injunction restraining 2nd Defendant from complying with any demand by 1st Defendant under the Performance Bond, from releasing the Said Sum or taking further steps to realise D1's demand and from making any demand on the counter‑guarantee pending disposal of the arbitral proceedings (prayers B(4), B(5), B(6),...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment