Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interim measures

Legal area

Court

28 Mar 2025

SHELL MALAYSIA TRADING SDN BHD Hasdiana Binti Hashim

Citation

BA-24NCC-15-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCC-15-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court found a real dispute existed as to the commencement and expiry of the 1995 contract that falls within the scope of the arbitration clause; the test for interim measures is modified in arbitration context and the Court must not prejudge substantive issues reserved for the arbitrator. The preliminary objection on privilege was dismissed and, applying Sections 11 and 19J AA 2005 and relevant authorities, the Court granted interlocutory injunctions preserving the status quo pending determination of arbitration or 1-10-2028, subject to an undertaking as to damages.
7 Aug 2024

MACRO DIMENSION CONCRETE SDN BHD JIMAH ENERGY VENTURES SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24NCC(ARB)-18-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24NCC(ARB)-18-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Because the arbitral tribunal had not been constituted and the Plaintiff established a bona fide serious dispute, that damages would be inadequate (supply of Fly Ash cannot be obtained on the open market due to regulatory and market constraints), and that the balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo, the Court granted interim relief limited to permitting the Plaintiff to collect 56% of the Fly Ash produced monthly pending the arbitration; this preserves rights of both parties while leaving merits to the tribunal.
18 Jan 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-111-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-111-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the facts the court accepted that the PB is an autonomous on‑demand bank guarantee and not security over the plaintiff’s property for purposes of s 410 CA 2016, but found that the 1st Defendant’s call on the PB in the circumstances was unconscionable; accordingly the court granted interim injunctive reliefs restraining payment under the PB and related enforcement of the counter‑guarantee and awarded costs of RM20000 against the 1st Defendant.
12 May 2023

SYARIKAT ONG YOKE LIN SDN BHD GRAND DYNAMIC BUILDERS SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24NCC(ARB)-57-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24NCC(ARB)-57-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The bank guarantee is a conditional guarantee read together with the subcontract; the Defendant failed to establish or produce the contractual pre-condition (written notice of breach under Clause 22.6) required to call the guarantee; the Plaintiff placed sufficient manifest prima facie evidence of unconscionability and over-securitisation given admitted certified sums and recurring costs far exceed the guarantee amount, therefore an interim injunction under s.11 Arbitration Act 2005 is justified to restrain the Defendant from calling or receiving payment under the guarantee, subject to the co…
25 Aug 2022

MALAYSIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION BERHAD DESARU PEACE HOLDINGS CLUB SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24NCC(ARB)-22-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24NCC(ARB)-22-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Where parties have not agreed to exclude the arbitral tribunal's power under s19(1) AA 2005, an application for interim measures should ordinarily be made first to the arbitral tribunal; the High Court will only entertain such applications subsidiarily in exceptional circumstances (third parties, urgency, coercive enforcement, tribunal not constituted); no exclusion agreement existed here and the Court should not be deprived of its discretion by estoppel, therefore the Court dismissed the application and directed the parties to re-file before the arbitral tribunal.
28 Jan 2022

P&A MANAGEMENT SDN BHD WSH DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C(ARB)-63-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24C(ARB)-63-11/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court exercised its discretion under s11 AA2005 read with s580A CA2016 and Rules of Court, found credible testimony (financial statements, bank confirmations, non-payment of adjudicated sum) establishing reason to believe the defendant would be unable to pay a successful plaintiff's costs, found the plaintiff's deponent had locus and no breach of the procedural order, and ordered security for costs of RM300,000 (reduced from RM500,000 requested) and costs RM3,000 to plaintiff subject to allocatur.
25 Nov 2021

JA24C(ARB)--07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Citation

JA24C(ARB)--07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

JA24C(ARB)--07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found credible evidence of Defendant's insolvency (admitted), frozen accounts, audited deficits and failure to pay over RM80,000 in court-ordered costs; these factors raised reasonable doubt as to Defendant's ability to pay costs, justifying an order for security for costs. Considering the adjudication award (RM1,020,467.42), prior unpaid costs and Defendant's RM5m claim, RM400,000 security was proportionate and ordered with costs to Plaintiff.
8 Jul 2021

Tanjung Bin Energy Sdn Bhd Tenaga Nasional Berhad

Citation

WA-24NCC(ARB)-21-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24NCC(ARB)-21-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court held there was a valid arbitration agreement despite tiered dispute resolution and possessed jurisdiction under s.11 AA to grant interim measures before arbitration commenced; plaintiff raised a serious question; damages were likely inadequate because immediate deduction of RM191,624,300.74 would jeopardize plaintiff's operations while TNB would suffer minimal prejudice; balance of convenience favoured granting a limited interlocutory injunction to maintain the status quo pending arbitration, subject to conditions (proceed to arbitration with due despatch).
27 Apr 2021

CRCC MALAYSIA BERHAD DSG PROJECTS MALAYSIA SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C(ARB)-7-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24C(ARB)-7-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Enforcement of the tribunal’s interim measure was refused because the order as made was incompatible with the powers conferred upon the High Court by domestic law on security for costs; the Plaintiff failed to seek the Court’s discretionary reformulation under s19I(1)(b)(i) and offered no basis to exercise that discretion in its favour; the Court also found prayers seeking to alter payment mode, impose a 14‑day deadline and penalise directors amounted to variations that should be pursued before the tribunal rather than enforced by the Court.
5 Mar 2021

LKL Advance Metaltech Sdn Bhd Crecom Burj Gloves Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-24NCC(ARB)-37-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24NCC(ARB)-37-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court, empowered by s.11 Arbitration Act 2005, granted the interim Mareva injunction and mandatory disclosure because the plaintiff demonstrated a good and arguable claim, the defendant admitted receipt of substantial funds and has assets within jurisdiction (CIMB account), there is prima facie evidence of lack of probity and a real risk of dissipation given the defendant's conduct and similar dealings with other parties, and the balance of convenience favoured preservation of assets pending arbitration.