A three-member Federal Court panel chaired by Justice Abu Bakar Jais unanimously ruled that MyCC failed to meet the threshold set in Section 96 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 for leave to appeal against a Court of Appeal decision.

Also on the bench hearing the application were Justices Lee Swee Seng and Terrirudin Salleh.

Abu Bakar said the panel viewed what MyCC had termed a “proposed” decision as “substantive”, making it amenable to judicial review.

“It may be labelled a ‘proposed’ decision, but we accept and understand it to be a substantive decision that must be complied with, and because of that it is amenable to judicial review.

“We do not think that counsel (for MyCC), with respect, has satisfied Section 96. Therefore, we dismiss the application with costs of RM50,000 to the respondents (Grab, GrabCar and MyTeksi),” he said.

MyCC had on Oct 3, 2019 proposed to impose the fine on Grab for breaching anti-monopoly laws by imposing restrictive clauses on its drivers, which the commission said could distort competition.

The commission said the clause in the respondents’ contracts prevented their drivers from promoting other e-hailing services in their cars.

MyCC also noted that Grab’s merger with Uber saw it become the dominant player in the local e-hailing industry.

Grab then commenced a legal challenge against MyCC which saw the High Court quash the proposed fine.

The Court of Appeal dismissed MyCC’s appeal, ruling that there were no provisions in the Competition Act 2010 which allowed for an internal appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal on proposed decisions.

It also ruled that MyCC had failed to inform the respondents what they were being investigated for, as required under the law.

My CC was represented by counsel V Sithambaram and Ruebenkumar Asokan.

Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, Shanthi Kandiah, Lim Yvonne, Angela Hii and Azyan Ibrahim represented Grab and its subsidiaries.