DUNGGON JAYA SDN BHD vs AEROPOD SDN BHD & ANOR AND ANOTHER APPEAL

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 MarsdenLR 1392

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
DUNGGON JAYA SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
AEROPOD SDN BHD & ANOR AND ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent

Petitioner Advocates:Rakhbir Singh ,Respondent Advocate: Lau Cheung Hoon

Table of Content
1. procedural history of appeals relating to the bank guarantee and injunctions. (Para 1 , 2 , 7 , 8)
2. appeal decision and initial facts concerning the bank guarantee. (Para 5 , 14)
3. issues surrounding the validity and enforcement of interim relief under the arbitration act. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 35)
4. unconscionability as a standard for evaluating the conduct of parties in relation to guarantees. (Para 16 , 25 , 29 , 30)
5. criteria for establishing unconscionable conduct. (Para 17 , 19 , 20 , 31)
6. evidence required to establish claims of unconscionable conduct must be substantial. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 34)

[1] These two appeals arose from the decision of the High Court at Kota Kinabalu which:

(a) disallowed the appellant's application by way of Originating Summons to restrain the 1st respondent from calling on the Bank Guarantee of RM4,031,979.34 issued by the 2nd respondent until the appellant's claim is heard and disposed of by arbitration;

(b) disallowed the appellant's preliminary objection against the use of the 1st respondent's affidavit in reply as an opposing affidavit in the said application; and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 MarsdenLR 1392

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYADUNGGON JAYA SDN BHD – AppellantVersusAEROPOD SDN BHD & ANOR AND ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent

Cases Referred (4)

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
DUNGGON JAYA SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
AEROPOD SDN BHD & ANOR AND ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent