Court stays hearing of Grab's challenge against RM86.77m proposed fine

 

The Federal Court ordered a stay on the scheduled High Court hearing next Monday next week concerning Grab’s legal challenge against a proposed RM86.77 million fine over alleged contravention of competition laws.

The three-person bench chaired by Court of Appeal president Rohana Yusuf today allowed the stay application by the appellant, namely the Malaysian Competition Commission (MyCC).

The commission sought the stay on Monday’s hearing pending disposal of its application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court against an earlier Court of Appeal ruling that granted leave to Grab to proceed with the legal challenge.

On April 19 last year, the Court of Appeal granted leave to Grab to commence with the judicial review.

The Kuala Lumpur High Court - which initially rejected Grab’s application for leave to institute judicial review on March 9, 2020 - has then set to hear the merits of the e-hailer’s legal challenge on Monday next week, due to the Court of Appeal allowing the company’s appeal for leave.

MyCC was seeking the full Court of Appeal grounds as part of its appeal now pending before the Federal Court.

During online Federal Court proceedings conducted via zoom this morning, MyCC’s counsel Gopal Sri Ram sought the stay on the lower court Monday hearing, as the regulator had yet to be provided with the full written grounds of the Court of Appeal ruling that granted the judicial review leave.

“We need to see how the Court of Appeal grounds (of judgment) dealt with the issue,” the lawyer said, adding that the regulator would be put in a difficult position if the Monday High Court hearing commences while the appeal before the Federal Court is yet to conclude.

Grab’s counsel Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, however, objected to the stay application. He contended that the High Court already denied MyCC’s application to stay hearing of the merits of the judicial review, pending disposal of the regulator’s appeal now at the Federal Court.

At the end of brief submissions today, Rohana ruled that the Federal Court allowed the stay on the Monday hearing, pending the full Court of Appeal grounds being made available to MyCC.

“After hearing submissions from parties, we adjourned the matter (before the Federal Court), pending the Court of Appeal grounds of judgment being made available (to MyCC).

“We order the interim stay of the judicial review (hearing before the High Court), pending disposal of the (MyCC’s) leave application (to appeal to the Federal Court),” she said.

The other members of today’s bench were Federal Court judges Abdul Rahman Sebli and Mary Lim Thiam Suan.

Abusing dominant position

On Dec 30, 2019, Grab Inc, as well as related corporate entities Grabcar Sdn Bhd and Myteksi Sdn Bhd, filed the judicial review bid against the MyCC.

On Oct 3, earlier the same year, it was reported that MyCC proposed a fine of more than RM86 million against Grab for allegedly violating the Competition Act 2010 through its purported imposing of restrictive clauses on its drivers.

The ride-hailing firm seeks, among others, a declaration that the regulator is not empowered to publicise or communicate the proposed decision via the publication of a news release titled “MyCC proposes to fine Grab RM86 million for abusive practices” at its website as well as during a press conference on Oct 3, 2019.

Grab contended, among others, that in the course of MyCC’s investigation, which began on Dec 3, 2018, the regulator did not specify the basis of its belief on how Grabcar and Myteksi, which are collectively also known as Grab Malaysia, had contravened Section 10 (1) of the Competition Act.

Section 10 (1) states that an enterprise is prohibited from engaging, whether independently or collectively, in any conduct which amounts to an abuse of a dominant position in any market for goods or services.

Grab also alleged that the regulator had not abided by the Competition Act by giving the ride-hailing firm adequate notice that it was under investigation and to inform the company about the nature of the alleged infringement to afford the firm a meaningful opportunity to be heard during the probe. - Mkini