Pengerang Refining Company Sdn Bhd v Sinopec Engineering (Group) Co Ltd & Anor

Court of Appeal · · Commercial Law, Civil Procedure

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: This digest provides AI-generated summaries of recent Malaysian legal judgments and is provided for general informational purposes only. The digest may contain errors, omissions, or inaccuracies, and does not constitute legal advice or a substitute for legal counsel. For complete and authoritative information, always consult a qualified legal professional and refer to official court sources (here) or the full text of original judgments. The providers of this digest accept no responsibility or liability for any loss and/or damage resulting from reliance on its contents.

Pengerang Refining Company Sdn Bhd v Sinopec Engineering (Group) Co Ltd & Anor
CourtCourt of Appeal
Judgment Date7 November 2025
Date Uploaded10 December 2025
Legal TopicsCommercial Law, Civil Procedure
Parties

Appellant(s): Pengerang Refining Company Sdn Bhd

Respondent(s):

  • Sinopec Engineering (Group) Co Ltd
  • Sinopec Engineering Group Malaysia Sdn Bhd
Bench
  • YA Dato' Azmi Bin Ariffin
  • YA Datuk Seri Mohd Firuz Bin Jaffril
  • YA Tuan Ong Chee Kwan
Facts & Background
  • The appellant and the respondents entered into an Engineering, Procurement, Construction, and Commissioning (EPCC) Contract, for which the respondents provided a Performance Bond.
  • Following a dispute, the respondents commenced arbitration and successfully obtained an interim injunction from the High Court to restrain the appellant from calling on the Performance Bond.
  • The appellant subsequently appealed two High Court decisions: the grant of the interim injunction (R7) and the dismissal of its application to set aside the initial ex-parte injunction (R6).
Issues for the Court
  • Whether the appellant's demand on the Performance Bond was unconscionable, thereby justifying the High Court's grant of an interim injunction.
  • Whether the High Court erred in granting injunctive relief, particularly considering contractual provisions (Article 5.9) and the potential for interference with the arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction.
  • Whether Article 5.9 of the Conditions of Contract, which might restrict injunctive relief, was void under Section 29 of the Contracts Act 1950 or unenforceable under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act 2005.
Decision
  • The Court of Appeal affirmed that a demand on a performance bond is unconscionable if made after the works are completed, citing established legal precedents.
  • The Court found the appellant's demand on the Performance Bond to be unconscionable, noting that the facility was completed and operational, and the appellant had deliberately withheld necessary certifications while earning revenue from the facility.
  • The Court further held that the respondents had made full and frank disclosure to the High Court when obtaining the ex-parte injunction, leading to the dismissal of both appeals with costs.
Link to JudgmentView Full Judgment

Related judgments

📬 Found this useful?

Get daily AI-generated summaries of Malaysian legal judgments from the Federal Court and the Court of Appeal straight to your inbox, free!