PESTECH TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD 1. ) MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD 2. ) SYARIKAT PEMBENAAN YEOH TIONG LAY SDN BHD

PESTECH TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD 1. ) MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD 2. ) SYARIKAT PEMBENAAN YEOH TIONG LAY SDN BHD

The Court refused to grant an injunction because the plaintiff failed to establish the high threshold for fraud or unconscionability: the Performance Bond is an unconditional on‑demand guarantee, the demand by D2 was prima facie made in accordance with the bond and termination cited, the disputes are essentially contractual and properly for arbitration, and there was insufficient cogent evidence of fraud/unconscionability or over‑securitisation to justify restraining payment or receipt; accordingly the originating summons was dismissed with costs.

Citation
WA-24C-92-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: PESTECH SDN BHD; 1st Defendant: MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD; 2nd Defendant: SYARIKAT PEMBENAAN YEOH TIONG LAY SDN BHD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
20 November 2023
Case Number
WA-24C-92-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons (interim Injunction Under Arbitration Act 2005 and Specific Relief Act 1950) / High Court Judgment on Originating Summons (decision)
Outcome
Originating summons (both Enclosures) dismissed; injunction refused
Legal Topics
Performance Bond, On Demand Guarantee, Unconscionability, Fraud Exception to Guarantees, Injunction Pending Arbitration, Termination of Contract, Over Securitisation
Source Language
Malay/English
Arbitration Law Contract Law Equity and Injunctions Banking and Guarantees Construction Law Performance Bond On Demand Guarantee Unconscionability +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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PESTECH SDN BHD

Plaintiff

MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD

1st Defendant

SYARIKAT PEMBENAAN YEOH TIONG LAY SDN BHD

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons (interim Injunction Under Arbitration Act 2005 and Specific Relief Act 1950) / High Court Judgment on Originating Summons (decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an interim injunction should restrain payment under an unconditional on‑demand performance bond
  2. 2 Whether the beneficiary's call on the bond was fraudulent or unconscionable to justify injunction
  3. 3 Whether the bank/issuer can be restrained from paying absent notice of fraud

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused to grant an injunction because the plaintiff failed to establish the high threshold for fraud or unconscionability: the Performance Bond is an unconditional on‑demand guarantee, the demand by D2 was prima facie made in accordance with the bond and termination cited, the disputes are essentially contractual and properly for arbitration, and there was insufficient cogent evidence of fraud/unconscionability or over‑securitisation to justify restraining payment or receipt; accordingly the originating summons was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Originating summons (both Enclosures) dismissed; injunction refused

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs
  • No injunction granted restraining payment under the Performance Bond or restraining D2 from receiving/utilising monies called under the Performance Bond