PRESTIJ MEGA CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD MACLY ASSETS SDN BHD

PRESTIJ MEGA CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD MACLY ASSETS SDN BHD

The plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case of unconscionability or fraud sufficient to restrain payment under an unconditional on‑demand performance bond; the bond's operative wording did not incorporate the underlying contract so the defendant's written demand was valid, the disputes are for the arbitrator to decide, and therefore the injunction is refused and the originating summons is dismissed with costs.

Citation
WA-24C(ARB)-56-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Prestij Mega Construction Sdn Bhd; Defendant: Macly Assets Sdn Bhd
Court
ARB
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
5 March 2020
Case Number
WA-24C(ARB)-56-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons Interim Injunction Under Arbitration Act 2005 / Interlocutory Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Application dismissed (originating summons disallowed)
Legal Topics
Performance Bond, On Demand Bank Guarantee, Interim Injunction, Unconscionability, Liquidated and Ascertained Damages, Jurisdiction Under Arbitration Act S11
Source Language
Malay/English
Arbitration Contract Construction Law Civil Procedure Bank Guarantee Law Performance Bond On Demand Bank Guarantee Interim Injunction +3 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prestij Mega Construction Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff

Macly Assets Sdn Bhd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons Interim Injunction Under Arbitration Act 2005 / Interlocutory Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's demand on the performance bond was unconscionable or tainted by fraud
  2. 2 Whether the court may grant an injunction to restrain payment under an on‑demand performance bond pending arbitration
  3. 3 Whether the defendant would be entitled to double recovery of liquidated and ascertained damages

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case of unconscionability or fraud sufficient to restrain payment under an unconditional on‑demand performance bond; the bond's operative wording did not incorporate the underlying contract so the defendant's written demand was valid, the disputes are for the arbitrator to decide, and therefore the injunction is refused and the originating summons is dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed (originating summons disallowed)

Orders

  • Application disallowed/dismissed
  • Costs awarded to Defendant in the sum of RM25,000.00 subject to 4% allocator