The Firm on behalf of CIMB Bank (2nd Respondent) filed an interpleader action due to adverse claims between the Appellant and First Respondent. The bank guarantee to which the appellant and the first respondent were parties was a distinct legal document from the building contract, which was an agreement between the first and second respondents. The building contract formed no part of the bank guarantee. The bank guarantee by its terms was an unconditional and a pure “on demand” guarantee. All that was required to activate it was a written demand by the first respondent. The failure to present the original bank guarantee at the time of demand was a non-issue. The payment mechanism as contained in the bank guarantee made no reference to any requirement that the original bank guarantee must be produced at the time of demand before payment could be made. In this case, it was not a contractual requirement that must be complied with.
Garnesan & Irmohizam Advocates and Solicitors
