logo
Petros vs Petronas: Failure to comply with DGO constitutes ‘unconscionable conduct', court told

Petros vs Petronas: Failure to comply with DGO constitutes ‘unconscionable conduct', court told

Borneo Post11-06-2025
Fong (right) exits the courtroom after the proceedings.
KUCHING (July 11): The Distribution of Gas Ordinance (DGO) 2016 is a written law passed by the Sarawak Legislature and is therefore a written law in force in Malaysia, the High Court here was told today.
State Legal Counsel Dato Sri JC Fong said Petroliam Nasional Berhad's (Petronas) failure to comply with the DGO and continuing to supply gas without a licence issued under the DGO, and then preventing other licensed gas suppliers or producers from selling gas to Petroleum Sarawak Berhad (Petros) as the state's gas aggregator, constitutes 'unconscionable conduct' on the part of national oil firm.
In his submission to the court in the lawsuit brought by Petros against Petronas, Fong, appearing for the Sarawak government, said Petros is invoking the court's inherent jurisdiction to declare that the demand by Petronas on a bank guarantee issued by Maybank Islamic Berhad is 'unconscionable, unlawful, null and void'.
He said all parties, including the federal and Sarawak governments, have agreed that 'unconscionability' is a ground to restrain a beneficiary of a bank guarantee or performance bond from making a call on a bank guarantee or performance bond.
'In this case, the underlying contract is the Sarawak Gas Sales Agreement (SGSA) dated Dec 30, 2019.
'The bank guarantee was issued pursuant to this underlying contract to secure payment for gas supplied by Petronas to Petros. Petronas is the beneficiary of the bank guarantee.
'Petronas did not sign the SGSA because the PDA (Petroleum Development Act) 1974 guarantees the role of Petronas nationwide,' said Fong.
He said Petronas entered into the SGSA because it had sold and transferred its business of supplying gas to customers in Bintulu and Miri to Petros, and is selling gas to Petros to enable the state-owned company to fulfil its obligations to its customers who were previously customers of Petronas.
'This SGSA has nothing to do with the PDA or the business of Petronas under the PDA, which had been sold and transferred to Petros. There is nothing in the SGSA which even suggests that Petronas entered into this SGSA in pursuance of the PDA.
'It was purely a commercial contract based on purely commercial consideration, but the mode of performance thereof must not contravene any written law in force in Malaysia.'
Fong said for Petronas to consciously disobey, disregard, and disrespect the DGO amounts to a contravention of an important constitutional safeguard and an attempt to undermine the Sarawak government's executive authority under Article 80(2) of the Federal Constitution.
'This itself is clearly unconscionable conduct which this honourable court should not condone at all.
'Consequently, the calling upon the bank guarantee by Petronas, in these circumstances to obtain payment from Petros for gas supplied in contravention of the DGO and also in breach of Article 24.2 of the SGSA, is clearly unconscionable and unlawful,' he said.
Article 24.2 of the SGSA stipulates that 'Nothing in this Agreement shall entitle the Parties (i.e. Petronas and Petros) to exercise the rights, privileges and powers conferred on it in a manner which would contravene any written law for the time being in force in Malaysia.'
Petros is seeking a court order for the return of RM7.95 million paid to Petronas under the bank guarantee.
The conflict began in October 2024 when Petronas called on the bank guarantee in response to a RM28.1 million demand from Petros related to gas supply.
Petros then initiated legal proceedings against Petronas and sought an injunction to stop the disbursement of the funds.
However, the injunction request became academic after Maybank Islamic Berhad released the payment to Petronas.
Petronas was represented by counsels Datuk Dr Cyrus Das and Khoo Guan Huat, while Petros was represented by counsels Tan Sri Cecil Abraham, Sim Hui Chuang and Lim Lip Tze.
The proceeding was heard before Judicial Commissioner Datuk Faridz Gohim Abdullah, who fixed Aug 25 and 26 for the next hearing. DGO Distribution of Gas Ordinance JC Fong Petronas Petros
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Malaysia reviews six maritime laws to boost industry competitiveness
Malaysia reviews six maritime laws to boost industry competitiveness

The Sun

time8 hours ago

  • The Sun

Malaysia reviews six maritime laws to boost industry competitiveness

PETALING JAYA: The Ministry of Transport is reviewing six key maritime laws to modernise Malaysia's shipping sector and align regulations with current industry demands. Transport Minister Anthony Loke confirmed the review includes the Merchant Shipping Ordinance 1952 and related Sabah and Sarawak ordinances. A special committee chaired by Federal Court Judge Tan Sri Nallini Pathmanathan will oversee the legislative updates. The proposed amendments are expected to reach Parliament within a year. Loke clarified that the revisions aim to harmonise laws across Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah, and Sarawak without undermining state rights under the Malaysia Agreement 1963. The review covers the Merchant Shipping Ordinance 1960 (Sabah), Merchant Shipping Ordinance 1960 (Sarawak), Penang Port Commission Act 1955, Port Authorities Act 1963, and the Port (Privatisation) Act 1990. Loke stressed that the federal government has no plans to take over Sabah and Sarawak's maritime authority. Separately, the ministry plans to introduce the Admiralty Bill this year to establish a specialised maritime court. Currently, shipping disputes are handled by the High Court. The new court would streamline maritime case resolutions. – Bernama

Govt, minister fail to quash ex-KL Tower operator's suit
Govt, minister fail to quash ex-KL Tower operator's suit

Free Malaysia Today

time9 hours ago

  • Free Malaysia Today

Govt, minister fail to quash ex-KL Tower operator's suit

The High Court ruled that there are issues arising from a supplementary agreement signed in 2022 between Hydroshoppe and the government for the lease of KL Tower which must go to trial. KUALA LUMPUR : The High Court has rejected the government's bid to strike out a lawsuit filed by KL Tower's former operator over the award of the tower's concession to another company. Justice Roz Mawar Rozain held that Hydroshoppe Sdn Bhd and Menara KL Sdn Bhd's claim against the government and communications minister Fahmi Fadzil, named a co-defendant, must proceed to trial. 'There are triable issues regarding the 2022 agreement,' she added. However the court struck out Hydroshoppe's claim against the new operators, LSH Service Master Sdn Bhd, LSH Best Builders Sdn Bhd, and Service Master (M) Sdn Bhd. Roz Mawar held that Hydroshoppe had failed to properly identify its cause of action against the three entities, rendering the suit defective. She also ordered Hydroshoppe to pay them RM20,000 in costs. The court fixed the suit against the government and Fahmi for case management on Nov 3. In March, Hydroshoppe and Menara KL filed the suit claiming that the government's award of the concession to the LSH group was in breach of contract. They asked the court to declare the award of the KL Tower concession to LSH Service Master void and unlawful. They are seeking an estimated RM1 billion in damages. Lawyer Vinayak Sri Ram appeared for Hydroshoppe while senior federal counsel Ahmad Hanir Hambaly appeared for the government and lawyer Malik Imtiaz Sarwar represented LSH Service Master.

Investment firm directors jailed 20 days for failing to comply with Mareva injunction
Investment firm directors jailed 20 days for failing to comply with Mareva injunction

New Straits Times

time12 hours ago

  • New Straits Times

Investment firm directors jailed 20 days for failing to comply with Mareva injunction

KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court today jailed two directors of an investment firm 20 days each after finding them guilty of contempt of court for failing to comply with a Mareva injunction. Judicial Commissioner Yusrin Faidz Yusoff sentenced Syed Mahadzir Fadaak Syed Jamil Fadaak and his wife, Erna Elliyana Rosli, for not complying with the injunctions issued on Sept 5 and Nov 22 last year. A Mareva injunction is an order to freeze assets and prevent the transfer of assets before a judgment is enforced. The couple apologised to the court for failing to comply with the Mareva injunction. "We had no intention of insulting the court. We did not understand what was demanded of us," said Syed Mahadzir. He said there was an ongoing audit and they only obtained a draft report as they were unable to pay the audit firm after their bank accounts were frozen. The Mareva injunction was issued amid a civil suit on breach of contract. It came after the couple's firm, Alpha Capital (M) Bhd, failed to pay monthly dividend returns to 64 investors. The 64 investors sued Alpha Capital for breach of contract involving RM19,831.440.50 of monthly dividend returns. Yusrin suspended the jail term for two months to give the couple time to fully comply with the Mareva injunction issued in September last year. The judge fined the couple RM10,000 each, which must be settled within seven days, in default seven days' jail. In his ruling, Yusrin said he was not persuaded that the couple should only be fined, given the circumstances of the case. "The great concealment of the material information, the failure to comply over an extended period and the strategic nature of the non-disclosure demands a stern response," he said. Lawyers Sachpreetraj Singh and Simran Kaur acted for the 64 investors, while Ganesh Magenthiran appeared for the couple.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store