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 PENGERANG REFINING COMPANY SDN BHD

The court found on the evidence that the defendant was prima facie responsible for the delays, which justified granting the interlocutory injunction, rendered the demand on the performance bond invalid and warranted dismissal of enclosure 31; therefore orders in terms for prayers 2,3 and 5 were granted with costs in the cause.

Citation
WA-24C(ARB)-38-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: Defendant
Court
ARB
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
24 March 2025
Case Number
WA-24C(ARB)-38-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Construction Dispute (civil) / Interlocutory Injunction Hearing / Order
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction granted; demand on performance bond declared invalid and of no effect; Order in Terms granted for prayers 2,3 and 5 of Enclosure 1; Enclosure 31 dismissed with costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
Injunction, Delay Damages, Performance Bond, Prima Facie Liability, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Construction Equity Procedural Law Injunction Delay Damages Performance Bond Prima Facie Liability +1 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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Construction Dispute (civil) / Interlocutory Injunction Hearing / Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's actions were prima facie attributable to delays disentitling them to delay damages
  2. 2 Whether an interim injunction should be granted
  3. 3 Whether the demand on the performance bond (PB) is valid

Ratio Decidendi

The court found on the evidence that the defendant was prima facie responsible for the delays, which justified granting the interlocutory injunction, rendered the demand on the performance bond invalid and warranted dismissal of enclosure 31; therefore orders in terms for prayers 2,3 and 5 were granted with costs in the cause.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction granted; demand on performance bond declared invalid and of no effect; Order in Terms granted for prayers 2,3 and 5 of Enclosure 1; Enclosure 31 dismissed with costs in the cause.

Orders

  • Grant injunction sought (orders in terms for prayers 2, 3 and 5 of Enclosure 1).
  • Declare the demand on the performance bond invalid and of no effect.