Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Bank guarantee

Legal area

Court

28 Oct 2025

BGMC CORPORATION SDN BHD 1. ) GITA KASTURI SDN. BHD. 2. ) UNITED OVERSEAS BANK (MALAYSIA) BERHAD

Citation

BA-24C(ARB)-8-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

BA-24C(ARB)-8-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The performance bond was conditional and the 1st Defendant supplied the required basis when calling the bond; the Plaintiff failed to produce manifest, cogent evidence of unconscionable conduct sufficient to restrain the call; the call was an exercise of contractual rights under the PAM Contract and LoA, therefore the injunction was refused and the originating summons dismissed with costs.
22 Aug 2025

FGV PRODATA SYSTEMS SENDIRIAN BERHAD 1. ) NEC CORPORATION OF MALAYSIA SENDIRIAN BERHAD 2. ) NEC CAPITAL SOLUTIONS MALAYSIA SENDIRIAN BERHAD PIHAK KETIGA Shinryu Co Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-22NCC-139-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-139-03/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court found delivery occurred to the contractual recipient Hualang at the Maju Intan Plant as evidenced by the Shinryu delivery order signed and stamped by Hualang, the plaintiff's own contemporaneous packing list/checklist/certificate of completion and, critically, the plaintiff CEO's email confirming personal verification; therefore representations were not false, plaintiff did not rely on false representations, plaintiff is estopped by its conduct and delay, the misrepresentation claims fail, the HPA remains valid, the 2nd Defendant's counterclaim lacked…
3 Feb 2025

PERSPEKTIF MASA SDN BHD SABAH DEVELOPMENT BANK BERHAD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-490-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-490-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the plaintiff’s claim was plainly unsustainable because the written bank guarantee and facility agreements unequivocally permitted payment on demand without the bank investigating disputes between beneficiary and principal; the plaintiff accepted and benefited from the facilities and later converted the paid guarantee into a term loan, there was no adequate evidence of unconscionable conduct or of any duty on the bank to investigate, therefore the strike‑out application succeeds.
18 Oct 2024

RD RESOURCES SDN. BHD. 1. ) MALAYSIA AIRPORTS SDN. BHD. 2. ) BANK ISLAM MALAYSIA BERHAD

Citation

WA-24C(ARB)-58-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24C(ARB)-58-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

WA-24C(ARB)-58-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
23 Aug 2024

JSNT2 SDN. BHD. 1. ) EXYTE MALAYSIA SDN. BHD. 2. ) BANK OF CHINA (MALAYSIA) BERHAD 3. ) CHINA CONSTRUCTION BANK CORPORATION NANTONG BRANCH

Citation

WA-24C-19-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-19-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court dismissed the plaintiff's applications and allowed the 1st Defendant's application to set aside the ex-parte injunction because the plaintiff failed to prove that the 1st Defendant's call on the PB was unconscionable on the facts; the plaintiff's limited corrective disclosures did not invalidate the ex-parte order; and the proper construction of paragraph 4 of the PB permits demand within three months after the expiry date (until 30.7.2024).
12 Aug 2024

1. ) Bina Puri Sdn Bhd 2. ) Beringin Waja Sdn Bhd (berniaga di bawah usahasama di bawah nama Konsortium Bina Puri-Beringin Waja) 1. ) Kerajaan Malaysia 2. ) United Overseas Bank (Malaysia) Berhad

Citation

WA-24C(ARB)-50-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24C(ARB)-50-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court is bound by the Supreme Court majority in Lim Kit Siang and the statutory bar in section 29 Government Proceedings Act 1956 together with section 54(d) Specific Relief Act 1950 precludes granting an injunction against the Government; therefore the injunction applications (Enclosure 1 and Enclosure 3) must be dismissed and costs awarded to the Defendant.
5 Jul 2024

GAMMERLITE SDN BHD 1. ) JAMBATAN KEDUA SDN BHD 2. ) CIMB BANK BERHAD

Citation

WA-24C-22-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-22-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The performance bond was an on‑demand and unconditional guarantee payable on first written demand; the Plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case of unconscionability or other exceptional grounds to restrain payment; therefore the demand was lawful and the injunction and originating summons were dismissed with costs.
1 Jul 2024

CHINA NATIONAL TECHNICAL IMPORT & EXPORT CORPORATION 1. ) PJD LINK (M) SDN BHD 2. ) ALLIANCE BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD 3. ) BANK OF CHINA (MALAYSIA) BERHAD

Citation

WA-24C-126-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-126-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Assignment of 3 April 2018 operated to assign present and future rights in the UBG to AIBB (and by vesting to ABMB); equitable assignment principles apply so the UBG, though issued later, relates back and vests in the assignee. The UBG was an unconditional, on‑demand guarantee; D1 could not unilaterally impose conditions or alter its character via the Notice of Assignment and Bank of China (Malaysia) Berhad had no capacity to accept such a modification. Therefore ABMB had the legal right to call on the UBG; the plaintiff's ex parte injunctions were unjustified and were set aside and the o…
1 Jul 2024

CHINA NATIONAL TECHNICAL IMPORT & EXPORT CORPORATION 1. ) PJD LINK (M) SDN BHD 2. ) ALLIANCE BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD 3. ) BANK OF CHINA (MALAYSIA) BERHAD

Citation

WA-24C-126-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-126-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the 3 April 2018 assignment was effective to transfer present and future rights (including the subsequently issued RM63,000,000 UBG) to AIBB and thus to ABMB on vesting; an unconditional on‑demand bank guarantee cannot be altered by conditions inserted by the original beneficiary in a notice to the issuing bank; accordingly ABMB was entitled to call on the Bank Guarantee and the plaintiff's originating summons and interlocutory relief were dismissed and the ex parte orders set aside.
5 Jun 2024

Samsung C&T Corporation UEM Construction JV Sdn Bhd Global Wall (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd

Citation

W-02(IM)(C)-859-05/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-02(IM)(C)-859-05/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the timing and circumstances surrounding the appellant's demand on the bank guarantee gave rise to a seriously arguable inference of unconscionability justifying an interim injunction restraining the call; an undertaking as to damages by the respondent was required; the fortification (security deposit) application was dismissed; appeals 857 and 858 were dismissed and appeal 859 was allowed in part to record the undertaking as to damages; costs were awarded.