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 held the Appellant’s call on the Performance Bond was unconscionable because the facility had been completed and handed over, the Appellant had derived operational revenue, and the Appellant had withheld the approved Performance Test Report to avoid issuing Provisional Acceptance; therefore injunctive relief to restrain the demand was justified and the High Court did not err in dismissing the setting‑aside application; both appeals were dismissed.

Citation
W-02(IM)(C)-558-04/2025 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant(s): Pengerang Refining Company Sdn Bhd; Respondent(s): Sinopec Engineering (Group) Co Ltd; Respondent(s): Sinopec Engineering Group Malaysia Sdn Bhd
Court
IM
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
7 November 2025
Case Number
W-02(IM)(C)-558-04/2025 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals From High Court Injunctive Orders and Setting‑aside Application
Outcome
Both appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Performance Bond, Interim Injunction, Ex‑parte Orders, Setting Aside, Unconscionability, Security for Costs, Parent Company Guarantee, Arbitration Act S11, Contracts Act S29
Source Language
Malay/English
Arbitration Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Banking and Guarantees Injunctions Performance Bond Interim Injunction Ex‑parte Orders +6 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pengerang Refining Company Sdn Bhd

Appellant(s)

Sinopec Engineering (Group) Co Ltd

Respondent(s)

Sinopec Engineering Group Malaysia Sdn Bhd

Respondent(s)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals From High Court Injunctive Orders and Setting‑aside Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellant’s demand on the performance bond was unconscionable
  2. 2 Whether the Respondents made full and frank disclosure in obtaining ex‑parte relief
  3. 3 Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the Appellant’s setting aside application

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the Appellant’s call on the Performance Bond was unconscionable because the facility had been completed and handed over, the Appellant had derived operational revenue, and the Appellant had withheld the approved Performance Test Report to avoid issuing Provisional Acceptance; therefore injunctive relief to restrain the demand was justified and the High Court did not err in dismissing the setting‑aside application; both appeals were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Both appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals in R6 and R7 dismissed with costs of RM25,000.00 for each case subject to allocatur fees
  • Security for costs orders previously made: Appellant required to deposit RM10,000.00 per appeal (deposits recorded)