There are 3 applications before me, enclosure (5) is in respect of the plaintiff’s application for a Mareva injunction against the defendant; enclosure (14) is in respect of the defendant’s application to set-aside the ex parte Mareva injunction obtained by the plaintiff against the defendant on 8 January 2008; and enclosure (23) is in respect of the plaintiff’s application for a summary judgment against the defendant.

The plaintiff and defendant entered into a construction contract for a sum of RM56,586,000. Pursuant to the contract, the plaintiff provided the defendant with a bank guarantee of RM4,895,160.00 for the design of the works. On 30 June 2003, the plaintiff received a letter from the bank informing the plaintiff that the defendant had made a call on the bank guarantee. As the defendant had attempted to call on the bank guarantee, the plaintiff applied for an ex parte injunction to restrain the defendant from demanding and accepting any monies pursuant to the bank guarantee pending the hearing of the plaintiff’s originating summons which was granted. The issue to be determined by the court was whether the defendant had failed to comply with the terms of the bank guarantee in making its call from the bank.

HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUALA LUMPUR [PETITION NO: D26NCC-39-03/2012] MOHAMAD ARIFF BIN MD YUSOF…