The court retains discretion to modify unperfected orders within established limitations, emphasizing the balance of interests pending resolution.

[1] The Plaintiff, Gumusut-Kakap Semi-Floating Production System (L) Ltd, and the 1st Defendant (D1), Sabah Shell Petroleum Company Limited, are in the oil and gas industry. The Plaintiff specialty is in the construction and lease of Semi-submersible Floating Production System ("SEMI-FPS"). D1 had entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff for the engineering, procurement, construction and lease of a SEMI-FPS dated 9 November 2012 (Lease Agreement No C-591673) ("Lease Agreement").

[2] A dispute has arisen between the parties and D1 had called upon an on demand Performance Bond (Bond) dated 28 November 2014 for the sum of USD 20 million procured by the Plaintiff from D2, AmBank (M) Berhad, under the terms of the Lease Agreement, in favour of D1.

[3] Under the Lease Agreement, there was provided a Commencement of Commercial Production of oil (CoCP), namely, first oil delivery, which was achieved on 11 October 2014. Upon notification of CoCP, the Plaintiff was to procure the bond of USD 20 million in favour of the D1 from a Malaysian Bank and the lease payment for the SEMI-FPS day rate of USD 600,000 per day shall commence to be paid by D1 to the Plaintiff.

[4] Under the Lease Agreement the Bond was procured by the Plaintiff as a security in respect of the Plaintiff's obligation to perform the work in accordance with the provisions of the Lease Agreement and without any defects, as well as the Plaintiff's obligation to complete all work prior to final acceptance and completion.

[5] On 20 October 2016, the Plaintiff filed an ex parte injunction application (Encl 3) with notice to restrain D1 from receiving the monies it demanded in respect of the Bond (Ex parte Injunction). The hearing of the Ex-parte Injunction was fixed on the same day and the Plaintiff informed D1 of the said hearing. It was heard as an opposed ex-parte application and after hearing the parties, this Court granted an Ex-parte Injunction order and fixed 3 November 2016 for inter partes hearing.

[6] During the inter partes hearing on 3 November 2016, the Plaintiff learned counsel informed the Court that they had just been served with some 55 volumes of affidavit and exhibits. They were given 14 days to reply to D1's affidavit.

[7] Meanwhile, parties agreed that the status quo should be preserved and so this Court proceeded to grant an ad-Interim Injunction along the following terms subject to the usual undertaking as to damages until the disposal of this Originating Summons (OS):

(1) An ad interim injunction is granted restraining the 1st Defendant, whether by itself or through its directors, employees, servants, representatives and/or agents otherwise howsoever, from receiving the proceeds of any payment made under the Bond (dated 28 November 2014 and issued pursuant to Contract No C591673) or, in the event that the said proceeds have been received by the first Defendant, an Order that the funds be refunded to the Plaintiff within seven (7) days from the date of this Order;

(2) That this ad interim injunction is maintained until the disposal of the Plaintiff's Originating Summons dated 20 October 2016;

(3) The Plaintiff to renew the Bank Guarantee (dated 28 November 2014 and issued pursuant to Contract No C591673) to remain valid up to 31 January 2017 and to include a provision on interest and to furnish the renewed Bank Guarantee (dated 28 November 2014 and issued pursuant to Contract No C591673) to the 1st Defendant's solicitors by close of business on 6 November 2016.

(4) The Plaintiff to deposit the interest on the secured sum of USD20,000,000.00 (at a rate