MyCC tak boleh cabar keputusan tribunal sendiri, putus Mahkamah Rayuan

Malaysian Competition Commission (MyCC) has been denied the right to challenge its own decision-making body, the Malaysia Competition Tribunal (CAT), by the Court of Appeal. The three-judge panel, comprising Azizul Azmi Adnan, Ahmad Fairuz Zainol Abidin, and Evrol Mariette Peters, rejected MyCC's appeal against the refusal of the High Court to allow MyCC to initiate a review of CAT's decision imposing financial penalties on 23 insurance companies.

MyCC was also ordered to pay RM30,000 to each of the nine legal representatives involved. The case dated back to 2020 when PIAM and 22 other affected insurers were found to engage in anti-competitive behavior by setting collective discount rates and labor fees for vehicle repairs under the Approved Repairers Scheme. However, CAT overturned the decision in 2022 after finding that all the insurers involved were not violating the Competition Act 2010.

MyCC then attempted to challenge CAT's decision through a court review application, with the main issue focusing on whether the commission had standing to challenge the tribunal's decision. The High Court had earlier dismissed MyCC's application, citing that it was bound by a previous CAT decision that held the commission lacked standing to appeal CAT's decisions.

Peters, while delivering the brief judgment, stated that the exception was narrow and could only be applied if the earlier court had clearly disregarded statutory or binding principles that would lead to a different conclusion. The panel also rejected MyCC's argument based on a previous case involving the Penang Municipal Board and its tribunal, emphasizing that the case did not create a general principle for the tribunal's decision-maker to challenge a CAT decision.

The Court stressed that under the Competition Act, an appeal is only available to those who suffered harm due to a CAT decision, not MyCC. The panel also rejected MyCC's argument that its quasi-judicial function and adjudicatory function were distinct, explaining that Peters' quasi-judicial capacity while imposing the financial penalties, rather than performing a broader supervisory role to shape or oversee the industry prospectively.

Once the adjudicatory function was completed, MyCC became functus officio, meaning its role in deciding the particular case had ended. MyCC's attempt to introduce Section 58A into the Competition Act to grant it an explicit review right further solidified the conclusion that such a right does not exist under the existing law. Peters emphasized that if Parliament did not provide for an appeal right, the court cannot create one.

MyCC's subsequent attempt to introduce Section 58A into the Competition Act to grant itself an explicit review right further reinforced the conclusion that such a right does not exist under the existing law. MyCC's failure to provide all necessary information and evidence while seeking a review review, and its failure to do so during the review application, were both found to be serious, given that MyCC had a greater duty as a statutory supervisory body to act with full integrity and honesty when dealing with the court.

The Court also noted that MyCC had concealed documents confirming that the commission had no statutory review right to CAT's decision following the MAS case, in addition to the document showing its desire for a legal amendment to create such a right.