PUTRAJAYA, Feb 9 ― The Federal Court here today allowed the application by Malaysian Competitions Commission (MyCC) to stay the hearing of Grab Holdings Inc’s legal challenge against the proposed imposition of an RM86.77 million fine, scheduled to begin next Monday at the Kuala Lumpur High Court.

The decision was made by a three-member bench chaired by Court of Appeal president Tan Sri Rohana Yusuf.

"We grant the order of an interim stay of the judicial review hearing pending the disposal of MyCC’s leave application (before the Federal Court).

"We adjourned today’s matter, pending the Court of Appeal grounds of judgment being made available to MyCC,” said Justice Rohana who sat with Justices Datuk Abdul Rahman Sebli and Datuk Mary Lim Thiam Suan.

Earlier, MyCC’s counsel Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram submitted that the commission sought to stay the 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 regulator would be put in a difficult position if the Monday’s hearing commences while the appeal before the Federal Court is yet to conclude,” said Sri Ram.

Counsel Datuk Malik Imtiaz Sarwar who acted for Grab Holdings, objected to the stay application as the case had been pending since 2019.

On May 18, 2021, MyCC filed an application for leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s ruling to allow Grab Holdings Inc and its subsidiaries to commence a judicial review to challenge the Commission’s proposed imposition of RM86.77 million fine on them.

On April 19, 2021, a three-man bench of the Court of Appeal led by Justice Datuk Hanipah Farikullah granted leave to Grab Holdings and its two subsidiaries, namely GrabCar Sdn Bhd and MyTeksi Sdn Bhd, to initiate judicial review against MyCC’s proposal to fine them for allegedly abusing their dominant position.

The appellate court had directed the case be remitted to the High Court for hearing of the merits of the judicial review.

Justice Hanipah had allowed the appeal by Grab and its two subsidiaries to set aside the High Court’s decision which did not favour them.

Subsequently, MyCC filed the leave application to appeal to the Federal Court on several questions of law which the company said are of significance and public interest.

In civil cases in the Federal Court, a litigant is required to get leave for the merits of the appeal to be heard.

MyCC had alleged that Grab abused its dominant position by imposing a restrictive clause on its drivers which effectively prevented them from promoting Grab’s current and potential competitors on e-hailing platforms and in transit media advertising.

Grab and its subsidiaries lost their bid for leave for judicial review in the High Court which had ruled that the move was premature, given that the proposed decision was not yet final. — Bernama