MyCC tak boleh cabar keputusan tribunal sendiri, putus Mahkamah Rayuan

The Malaysian Competition Commission (MyCC) is barred from challenging its own tribunal's decisions through a judicial review, as ruled by the High Court's Appellate Division. The three-judge panel comprising Azizul Azmi Adnan, Ahmad Fairuz Zainol Abidin, and Evrol Mariette Peters dismissed MyCC's appeal against the refusal of the High Court to grant leave to launch a judicial review against the Competition Appeals Tribunal's (CAT) decision that penalized 23 insurance companies.

MyCC was also ordered to pay RM30,000 to each of the nine legal representative firms involved in the case. The case dates back to 2020 when MyCC alleged that the Malaysian Insurance Association (PIAM) and 22 insurance policyholders were colluding to engage in anti-competitive practices by setting collective discount rates and labor fees for vehicle repairs under the Approved Repairers Scheme.

However, CAT overturned the ruling in 2022 after finding that all the implicated insurance companies had not violated the 2010 Competition Act. MyCC then attempted to challenge CAT's decision through a judicial review application before the High Court, challenging the jurisdiction of the commission to challenge its own tribunal's decisions.

The High Court previously dismissed MyCC's application on the grounds that it was bound by the previous High Court decision. However, Peters, while delivering the concise judgment, stated that the exception was narrow and could only be applied if the previous High Court decision clearly ignored specific statutory or binding precedents that would lead to a different conclusion.

The panel also rejected MyCC's argument that the supervisory and adjudicatory functions of the tribunal should be considered separate. Peters' panel emphasized that MyCC acted under quasi-judicial capacity when imposing the relevant penalty, rather than fulfilling its broader supervisory role to shape or control the industry prospectively.

Once the adjudicatory function was completed, MyCC became functus officio, meaning its role in deciding the particular case had ended. Since MyCC's capacity to act as a judicial power ended after the adjudicatory function was completed, the commission lacked the authority to challenge or sue CAT. The panel also rejected MyCC's claim that the decision in the previous MAS case indirectly denied the High Court's power of review, violating Article 8 of the Constitution which guarantees legal aid.

According to Peters, MyCC could not seek or use the power to challenge the decision after acting under quasi-judicial capacity. "Where Parliament did not provide a right of appeal, a court cannot create it," she emphasized. Peters added that MyCC's subsequent attempt to introduce Section 58A into the Competition Act to provide it with a clear legal right to appeal further reinforced the conclusion that such a right does not exist under the current law.

MyCC's failure to provide a full submission was deemed serious, given that MyCC held a statutory supervisory position to act with full integrity and honesty when dealing with the court. The High Court noted that MyCC had concealed documents confirming that the CAT did not possess statutory authority to challenge the decision in the MAS case, in addition to the document showing its willingness to seek legislative amendments to establish such a right.