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

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

The Court found the appellant's demand on the performance bond was unconscionable because the facility had been completed and was operating, the appellant deliberately withheld the approved performance test report to avoid issuing provisional acceptance and sought to recover delay damages after benefiting from operation; consequently the High Court's grant of interim injunction and refusal to set aside the ex parte order were correct and both appeals were dismissed.

Citation
W-02(C)(A)-565-04/2025 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Pengerang Refining Company Sdn Bhd; Respondent: Sinopec Engineering (Group) Co Ltd; Respondent: Sinopec Engineering Group Malaysia Sdn Bhd
Court
C
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
7 November 2025
Case Number
W-02(C)(A)-565-04/2025 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals
Outcome
Both appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Performance Bond, Interim Injunction, Ex Parte Order, Set Aside Application, Security for Costs, Unconscionability, Parent Company Guarantee
Source Language
Malay/English
Arbitration Contract Civil Procedure Banking and Guarantees Injunction Performance Bond Interim Injunction Ex Parte Order +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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pengerang Refining Company Sdn Bhd

Appellant

Sinopec Engineering (Group) Co Ltd

Respondent

Sinopec Engineering Group Malaysia Sdn Bhd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's demand on the performance bond was unconscionable
  2. 2 Whether the ex parte order should be set aside for non-disclosure or failure to make full and frank disclosure
  3. 3 Whether the High Court improperly interfered with arbitral jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found the appellant's demand on the performance bond was unconscionable because the facility had been completed and was operating, the appellant deliberately withheld the approved performance test report to avoid issuing provisional acceptance and sought to recover delay damages after benefiting from operation; consequently the High Court's grant of interim injunction and refusal to set aside the ex parte order were correct and both appeals were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Both appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals R6 and R7 dismissed
  • Costs awarded to respondents in the sum of RM25000.00 for each appeal subject to allocatur fees