SIGUR ROS SDN BHD vs MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD & ANOR

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Table of Content
1. jurisdiction and arbitration applicability (Para 1 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. charterparty agreement and bank guarantee terms (Para 6 , 7 , 12 , 14 , 22)
3. extension of hire period and correspondence (Para 8 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 19)
4. chronology of charterparty agreement and bg requirements. (Para 9)
5. claims related to vessel damage and reinstatement. (Para 15)
6. d2's demand on bg and plaintiff's position on expiry. (Para 23 , 24)
7. dispute on validity of bank guarantee (Para 25 , 26 , 28 , 31)
8. plaintiff's contention regarding bg expiration. (Para 27)
9. dispute over the interpretation of bg expiration. (Para 29 , 30)
10. d2’s argument for arbitration relevance. (Para 33 , 34)
11. court's decision on arbitration clause incorporation. (Para 35 , 36 , 40 , 41)
12. interpretation of bank guarantee expiry (Para 73 , 77 , 79 , 82 , 90)
13. court's determination of bg validity. (Para 74 , 76)
14. plaintiff's standing and declaratory relief (Para 75 , 81 , 91)

[1] The Plaintiff in this originating summons, Sigur Ros Sdn. Bhd. ('Plaintiff') seeks declarationsinter alia, that:-

(a) The Plaintiff's Bank Guarantee No. 99060BGF5921220 dated 30 October 2013 ('BG') issued by the First Defe