Back
2025 MarsdenLR 3857
HIGH COURT SABAH & SARAWAK KUCHING
PETROLEUM SARAWAK BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
PETROLIAM NASIONAL BERHAD (PETRONAS) – Respondent
[Originating Summons No: KCH-24NCC-4-10/2024]
In applications for interim injunctions, the court must establish if there is a serious issue to be tried; a granted injunction is inappropriate if the circumstances render the request unnecessary.
Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act 1950 - Sections 50, 51 and 52 - Courts of Judicature Act 1964 - Section 25(2) - Rules of Court 2012 - Applications for interim injunction - Application dismissed as the bank guarantee had already been released to the defendant, rendering the request redundant - The plaintiff’s claim for restraining orders did not meet the seriousness threshold required for interlocutory relief. (Paras 26, 27)
(B) Interlocutory Injunction - Principles established - Court must identify a serious issue to be tried and weigh justice - The balance of convenience must favor the defendant in cases of already completed transactions. (Paras 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, a Malaysian oil and gas company, sought an interim injunction against the defendant regarding a bank guarantee that had already been fulfilled. The plaintiff argued that the request for payment should be restrained, contending the call on the guarantee was unconscionable and lacked prior notice. (Paras 5-12)
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the application was rendered redundant due to the release of the bank guarantee to the defendant. Thus, no serious questions remained to justify granting an injunction. (Paras 23-24)
Issues: The court addressed whether the plaintiff's application for an injunction could be granted after the execution of the bank guarantee and whether there were serious questions to be tried regarding the defendant's actions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that since the defendant had already received the payment from the bank, the plaintiff's need for injunctive relief became moot, emphasizing the principles regarding the determination of serious issues and the balance of inconvenience. (Paras 27, 28)
Result: Plaintiff's application dismissed with costs in the cause.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. description of parties and context of application. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. arguments for injunctive relief and seriousness of claims. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. court's reasoning on the redundancy of injunction application. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 4. dismissal of the plaintiff's application for injunction. (Para 28) |
(Enclosure 2 - Ex-Parte Application For Interim Injunction)
Introduction
[1] The Plaintiff, Petroleum Sarawak Berhad (hereinafter referred to as "PETROS") is appealing against my decision in dismissing the ex parte application for interim injunction filed against the Defendant, Petroleum Nasional Berhad (hereinafter referred to as "PETRONAS") as stated in encl 2.
[2] Below are my grounds for dismissing the Plaintiff's ex parte application.
Brief Background Of Facts
[3] PETROS is a company incorporated under the laws of Malaysia and has its registered office at Level 6, CT660, Block C. ICOM Square, Jalan Pending 93450 Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia. PETROS is in the business of exploitation of oil and gas covering upstream, midstream, and downstream.
[4] PETRONAS is a company incorporated under the laws of Malaysia with its registered office at Tower 1, PETRONAS Twin Towers, Kuala Lumpur City Centre, 50088 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. PETRONAS is in the business of exploitation of oil and gas, marketing of petroleum and petroleum products, and investment holdings.
[5] On the 15 October 2024, the Plaintiff filed its Originating Summons pursuant to ss 50, 51 and/or 52 of the Specific Relief Act 1950 and/or s 25(2) read together with Schedule, Courts of Judicature Act 1964 and/or O 7, O 28, O 29 r 1, O 69, and/or O 92 r 4, Rules of Court 2012 and/or inherent jurisdiction of this Court for the following order and/or relief:
(a) a declaration that the Defendant's demand dated 14 October 2024 on the Bank Guarantee No 99120BGR6470582 dated 29 December 2023 ("Bank Guarantee") issued by Maybank Islamic Berhad and/or any further demand by the Defendant on the Bank Guarantee is unconscionable and/or unlawful, and accordingly null and void;
(b) an injunction to restrain the Defendant whether by itself, or its directors, managers, officers, employees, servants, agents or otherwise howsoever from further pursuing the payment of, receiving and/or utilising any monies that may have been received by the Defendant from Maybank Islamic Berhad under the Bank Guarantee;
(c) that the costs of and occasioned by this application be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff; and
(d) such further and other order as this Honourable Court deems fit and just to grant.
[6] The Plaintiff, on the same date, filed a Notice of Application (ex parte) (Encl 2) coupled with the Certificate of Urgency, (Encl 3) requesting for the application to be heard on an urgent basis. The ex parte application was supported by an affidavit of Victor Maiyor, the Plaintiff's Senior Vice President (Downstream) (Encl 4).
[7] Based on the said ex-parte application, the Plaintiff prays for the following reliefs and/or orders:
(a) an interim injunction to restrain the Defendant whether by itself, or its directors, managers, officers, employees, servants, agents or otherwise howsoever from further pursuing the payment of, receiving and/or utilising any monies that may have been received by the Defendant from Maybank Islamic Berhad under the Bank Guarantee No 99120BGR6470582 dated 29 December 2023 ("Bank Guarantee") pending the disposal of the Originating Summons filed herein;
(b) that this Honourable Court fixes a date to hear this application inter partes within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Order granting the Plaintiff's application herein;
(c) that the costs of and occasioned by this application be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff; and
(d) such further and other order as this Honourable Court deems fit and just to grant.
[8] According to the Plaintiff, as required under cl 11.1 of the Sarawak Ga
