Sumatec Engineering and Construction Sdn Bhd v Malaysian Refining Company Sdn Bhd
| Jurisdiction | Malaysia |
| Judgment Date | 2012 |
| Date | 2012 |
| Year | 2012 |
| Court | Federal Court (Malaysia) |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
53 cases
3 firm's commentaries
-
International Construction: On-Demand Bonds & Guarantees - First Judicial Guidance On URDG 758
...as opposed to mere possibility of fraud, the balance of convenience would almost always militate against the grant of an injunction. 4 [2012] 3 CLJ 401 the Federal Court recognised unconscionability as a "separate and independent ground to allow for a restraining order on the beneficiary," ......
-
FAQ On How To Prevent Or Resist The Calling Of A Performance Bond
...is the "prevention of oppression and unfair conduct" - Sumatec Engineering and Construction Sdn Bhd v Malaysian Refining Co Sdn Bhd [2012] 4 MLJ 1, Federal Court. Unconscionability arises "where events or conduct are of such degree such as to prick the conscience of a reasonable and sensibl......
-
Lease Rental Must Be Paid Come Hell Or High Water ' Airline Operator Fails In Bid To Restrain Call On Standby Letters Of Credit
...7 CLJ 442. 8 Since 2012, the Malaysian Federal Court in Sumatec Engineering and Construction Sdn Bhd v Malaysian Refining Company Sdn Bhd [2012] 4 MLJ 1 confirmed that Malaysian law joins the ranks of Australia and Singapore in allowing unconscionability as an exception to allowing calls on......
1 books & journal articles
-
Case Note
...Bhd v Nam Fatt Construction Sdn Bhd[2011] 7 CLJ 442 and Malaysian Refining Company Sdn Bhd v Sumatec Engineering and Construction Sdn Bhd[2012] 3 CLJ 401. 32BS Mount Sophia Pte Ltd v Join-Aim Pte Ltd[2012] 3 SLR 352 at [20] and [21], per Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA. See also H N Bennett, “Au......