The High Court in Kuala Lumpur rejected Petroliam Nasional Berhad’s (Petronas) application to convert ongoing interpleader proceedings involving Shell MDS (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd into a writ action. Petronas had argued that the complexity of the case and the need for oral evidence justified the change. However, the Court ruled that an originating summons under Order 17 of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC) is a self-contained process designed to resolve competing claims against a neutral stakeholder, without turning the proceedings into an adversarial action.
Shell MDS had initiated the interpleader proceedings to determine the rightful recipient of payments amid overlapping claims from Petronas and Petroleum Sarawak Berhad (Petros) regarding gas supply. The Court agreed with Petros and the Sarawak government, which opposed Petronas' application, stating that converting the case into a writ would undermine the purpose of the interpleader process and complicate the matter.
The Court emphasized that the proceedings should remain focused on legal entitlement rather than wider constitutional issues, as the case involves documentary evidence, not witness testimony. Case management is scheduled for Nov 10, 2025, via e-review.
Shell MDS had initiated the interpleader proceedings to determine the rightful recipient of payments amid overlapping claims from Petronas and Petroleum Sarawak Berhad (Petros) regarding gas supply. The Court agreed with Petros and the Sarawak government, which opposed Petronas' application, stating that converting the case into a writ would undermine the purpose of the interpleader process and complicate the matter.
The Court emphasized that the proceedings should remain focused on legal entitlement rather than wider constitutional issues, as the case involves documentary evidence, not witness testimony. Case management is scheduled for Nov 10, 2025, via e-review.
