1. Home
  2. Insights
  3. Alerts
  4. September 2025

MyCC-Grab Legal Saga: Court of Appeal affirms High Court’s Decision to Quash MyCC’s Proposed Decision against Grab

02 September 2025

On 19 March 2025, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision1 to quash the proposed decision by the Malaysia Competition Commission (“MyCC”) which sought to impose a financial penalty of RM86 million against Grab Inc, GrabCar Sdn Bhd and MyTeksi Sdn Bhd (collectively “Grab”)2.
 
How It All Started
 
The saga between the MyCC and Grab traces its origins to 2018, when the MyCC began receiving a plethora of complaints from the public alleging that Grab imposed unfair pricing practices through discriminatory conduct towards Grab taxi drivers in favour of Grab car drivers (“2018 Complaints”). While these initial allegations remained under investigation, a fresh grievance emerged in 2019.
 
On 7 March 2019, a Grab driver, Mohamed Radzwan bin Abdul Wahab, lodged a complaint with the MyCC after being banned from driving for Grab for allegedly “promoting other e-hailing services to riders” (“2019 Complaint”).
 
Following the investigations from the MyCC, on 23 September 2019, the MyCC issued a proposed decision pursuant to section 36 of the Competition Act 2010 (“CA 2010”), finding that Grab had abused its dominant position under section 10 of the CA 2010 by imposing a restrictive clause on its e-hailing drivers which prevented them from promoting and providing advertising services for Grab’s competitors in the e-hailing and transit media advertising market. As a result, the MyCC proposed to impose a financial penalty of RM86,772,943.76 on Grab and a daily penalty of RM15,000.00 from the date of service of the proposed decision for each day should Grab fail to comply with the MyCC’s remedial direction.
 
In response, Grab filed an application for leave to commence judicial review proceeding against the proposed decision and sought, among others, an order to quash the proposed decision. Grab’s leave application was initially dismissed by the High Court3, but the decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal and the matter was remitted back to the High Court to hear substantive arguments4. The MyCC’s application for leave to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision to the Federal Court was dismissed on 5 December 2022.
 
High Court: Substantive Judicial Review Application
 
Grab contended that the proposed decision was illegal and ultra vires on the following grounds: 
  1. The MyCC relied on evidence obtained from the 2018 Complaints to issue the proposed decision concerning the 2019 Complaint to find infringement on Grab. 
  2. No proper investigation was conducted by the MyCC, particularly Grab was not notified or interviewed regarding the 2019 Complaint. 
  3. The CA 2010 required the MyCC to undertake a thorough step by step investigation, but the MyCC failed to do so. 
In response, the MyCC argued that: 
  1. Grab’s judicial review application was premature as the proposed decision was not a final decision, and Grab had not exhausted the domestic remedy of statutory appeal under section 51 of the CA 2010 to appeal the proposed decision to the Competition Appeal Tribunal (“CAT”). 
  2. The investigations had been conducted professionally, and Grab had been fully aware and appraised of the nature of the investigations at all material times. The proposed decision is neither illegal nor ultra vires. 
The High Court found in favour of Grab and quashed the proposed decision and the fine and penalty imposed on the following grounds: 
  1. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, the High Court is bound by the decision of the Court of Appeal5 which expounded that a proposed decision is amenable to judicial review even though it has not been crystallised into a final decision either under section 39 or section 40 of the CA 2010. 
  2. The CA 2010 does not provide for appeals against decisions made under section 36 of the CA 2010, hence the CAT did not have the jurisdiction to deal with complaints concerning the issuance of a proposed decision. 
  3. The investigation process was tainted with procedural impropriety. Unlike the investigative steps taken on the 2018 Complaints, no proper investigation was made on the 2019 Complaint, yet the proposed decision was made on the 2019 Complaint. This deprived Grab of their right to be heard and opportunity to defend and meet the case alleged against them adequately. 
  4. The statutory role of the MyCC as the investigator, prosecutor and adjudicator is provided in the CA 2010 and the Competition Commission Act 2010. 
  5. The press statements fairly clarified that the proposed decision was not final and that Grab could still make representations to challenge the MyCC’s findings. However, issuing such a statement would be more appropriate after the final decision is made. 
Court of Appeal: High Court’s Decision Affirmed
 
The MyCC appealed the High Court’s decision to the Court of Appeal, but the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court’s decision on the following grounds: 
  1. Although the decision was a proposed decision issued under section 36 of the CA 2010, its content shows that the MyCC had effectively made a decision in principle on the infringement. This is evident from the imposition of a daily financial penalty of RM15,000.00 from the date the proposed decision was served should Grab fail to comply with the MyCC’s remedial direction, which suggested that the proposed decision already carried legal consequences. Thus, the judicial review application was not commenced prematurely. 
  2. There is no internal remedial procedure available as there is no provision in the CA 2010 that facilitates an appeal on a proposed decision made under section 36 of the CA 2010.   
  3. The investigation process is tainted with procedural impropriety. The MyCC is obliged under Part III of the CA 2010 to conduct a proper investigation, including giving prior notification to Grab regarding any investigation and the subject matter thereof. Its power to request for information, documents and statements under section 18 of the CA 2010 must also be exercised reasonably and in accordance with the CA 2010. There is no evidence that the MyCC had notified Grab regarding the investigation of the 2019 Complaint, nor has the MyCC provided a reasonable explanation for this omission. This deprived Grab of the opportunity to understand the precise complaint(s) against them. Despite the absence of formal notification, the MyCC requested information from Grab and its request was ambiguous and could not be meaningfully responded to. 
Key Takeaways
 
The Court of Appeal’s decision serves as a pivotal reminder to public bodies of the paramount importance of procedural fairness and transparency in the conduct of enforcement actions. It underscores the obligation of the public bodies to rigorously comply with established investigative protocols, including the timely disclosure to the affected party of the specific complaint(s) lodged and the precise nature of the investigation. This requisite transparency is essential to enable the affected party to fully comprehend the allegations made against it and thereafter be able to meaningfully respond to the allegations, rather than being kept out of the loop. The right to be heard and to mount a proper defence are foundational tenets of natural justice and due process, and must never be compromised or overlooked. Ultimately, adherence to these procedural safeguards is necessary not only to preserve the fairness and legitimacy of enforcement proceedings but also to maintain public confidence and the integrity of regulatory oversight as a whole.
 
Case Note by Tan Shi Wen (Partner) and Manshan Singh (Partner) of the Competition Law Practice of Skrine.
 
 
1 See MyTeksi Sdn Bhd & Ors v Suruhanjaya Persaingan [2023] CLJU 1921.
2 See Suruhanjaya Persaingan v MyTeksi Sdn Bhd & Ors [2025] 6 CLJ 229.
3 See MyTeksi Sdn Bhd & Ors v Suruhanjaya Persaingan [2020] 11 MLJ 93.
4 See MyTeksi Sdn Bhd & Ors v Competition Commission [2022] 6 MLJ 767.
5 See MyTeksi Sdn Bhd & Ors v Competition Commission [2022] 6 MLJ 767, paras. 42 – 43.

This article/alert contains general information only. It does not constitute legal advice nor an expression of legal opinion and should not be relied upon as such. For further information, kindly contact skrine@skrine.com.

  • Proud to be a member of
  • Lex_Mundi_3-line_Strap_White_RGB.png
  • connect with us
  •  
  •