Appeals Court sets Feb 28 decision on MyCC’s appeal over RM86.77m proposed fine against Grab, subsidiaries

PUTRAJAYA, Nov 20 — The Court of Appeal has set February 28 next year to deliver its decision on the Malaysian Competition Commission’s (MyCC) appeal challenging the High Court’s ruling to quash its proposed RM86.77 million fine against Grab Inc and its two subsidiaries over the e-hailing company’s alleged anti-competitive practice.

Mervyn Lai Wei Shiung, one of the lawyers representing MyCC, confirmed the decision date to Bernama when contacted today.

On Monday, a three-judge appellate panel, led by judge Datuk S. Nantha Balan, heard arguments from legal counsels representing MyCC and Grab Inc and its subsidiaries Grabcar Sdn Bhd and Myteksi Sdn Bhd. The court then reserved its ruling to a later date.

The other judges who sat with Justice Nantha Balan on Monday were Justices Datuk Lim Chong Fong and Datuk Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid.

MyCC is appealing the High Court’s decision of July 6 last year, which granted a certiorari order to the companies to quash the proposed fine.

In December 2019, the three companies filed a judicial review after MyCC proposed a fine of RM86.77 million, claiming the companies violated the Competition Act 2020 for abusing their dominant position by imposing restrictive clauses on their drivers, preventing them from promoting and providing advertising services for the latter’s competitors.

In 2020, the High Court denied leave for Grab and its subsidiaries to commence a judicial review on grounds that the move was “premature’ as the proposed decision was not yet final.

Grab appealed the decision and in April 2021, the Court of Appeal allowed Grab’s appeal to obtain leave and remitted the case back to the High Court for a hearing on its merits.

In 2022, the Federal Court dismissed MyCC’s application to obtain leave to appeal against the appellate court’s decision. The High Court then proceeded to a full hearing of the merits of the judicial review in 2022.

On Monday, MyCC’s lead counsel Tan Sri Tommy Thomas argued that the companies’ application for judicial review was premature, as the companies had not yet exhausted the appeal process outlined under the Competition Act.

Lawyer Datuk Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, representing the companies, submitted that MyCC’s assertion of the proposed decision being merely part of the investigative process was flawed, pointing to Section 36(1) of the Competition Act, which clearly stipulates that the issuance of the proposed decision follows the completion of an investigation. — Bernama