Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
EVERSENDAI CONSTRUCTIONS (M) SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
SAMSUNG C & T CORPORATION UEM CONSTRUCTION JV SDN BHD – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's application for injunction against defendant. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. details of parties and contractual agreements. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. plaintiff's grounds for alleging unconscionability. (Para 41 , 42) |
| 4. court's analysis of unconscionability claims. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48) |
| 5. timing of call on bank guarantee as a factor in unconscionability. (Para 63 , 64 , 66 , 67) |
| 6. court's decision to grant injunction. (Para 91) |
Introduction
[1] This is basically an application by the Plaintiff for an order for injunctive relief against the Defendant to prevent the Defendant from making a demand on the Bank Guarantee dated 31 May 2016 ('BG') issued by HSBC Amanah Malaysia Berhad ('HSBC') on behalf of the Plaintiff in favour of the Defendant on the ground of unconscionable conduct by the Defendant ('Injunction Application').
[2] Specifically, vide Originating Summons ('OS') dated 11 August 2022 (Encl 1), the Plaintiff sought, among others, for the following orders:
"1. that the Defendant whether by themselves or through their servants, agents, employees and/or anyone who acts under the instructions of the Defendan
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
