Mr Eric Gabriel Gomez

Eric Gabriel Gomez

Updates

Aviation

High court dismisses airlines' application for judicial review of penalty imposed by aviation regulator
Malaysia | 12 August 2020

The Kuala Lumpur High Court recently dismissed an application by AirAsia Berhad and its long-haul sister airline, AirAsia X Berhad, for leave to commence judicial review proceedings against a financial penalty imposed by the Malaysian Aviation Commission (MAVCOM). This was the first time that an airline had sought to challenge a penalty imposed by MAVCOM.

Game of drones
Malaysia | 22 July 2020

Drone technology is developing fast and drone popularity is growing even faster. It is crucial that drone regulations keep up to speed by undergoing periodic updates and amendments. The time is right for a comprehensive update to the rather limited drone rules in the Civil Aviation Regulations. It is also hoped that both the Civil Aviation Authority of Malaysia and the Ministry of Transport will keep a close eye on the development of other aeronautical projects such as the flying car.

High court issues key judgment for aviation service providers
Malaysia | 01 July 2020

In July 2019 the Kuala Lumpur High Court awarded a summary judgment for a combined sum exceeding RM40 million for unpaid passenger service charges in three civil suits brought by Malaysia Airports Sdn Bhd against AirAsia Berhad and AirAsia X Berhad. The recently released written grounds of judgment for this matter have provided welcome clarification on several important issues for providers of aviation services.

Air passenger rights curtailed by COVID-19 pandemic
Malaysia | 13 May 2020

According to the Malaysian Aviation Commission (MAVCOM), the COVID-19 pandemic constitutes 'extraordinary circumstances' under the Malaysian Aviation Consumer Protection Code. As a result, MAVCOM is temporarily providing some leeway in terms of how airlines can respond to passenger refund requests. However, in doing so, it may have inadvertently exposed passengers to the risk of losing their entire ticket cost.

MAVCOM imposes significant financial penalties on AirAsia, AirAsia X and Malaysia Airports (Sepang)
Malaysia | 05 February 2020

The Malaysian Aviation Commission (MAVCOM) recently announced that it had imposed RM2 million fines on AirAsia Berhad and its long-haul sister airline AirAsia X Berhad. MAVCOM further announced that it had imposed an RM856,875 penalty on Malaysia Airports (Sepang) Sdn Bhd, which is the operator of Kuala Lumpur International Airport. The fines come at a time of considerable uncertainty for MAVCOM and the Malaysian aviation industry.

FAA downgrades Malaysia's air safety rating
Malaysia | 27 November 2019

Malaysia's International Aviation Safety Assessment air safety rating was recently downgraded from Category 1 to Category 2 by the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). As a result, all Malaysian airlines are now restricted from adding new flights to the United States, although existing flights will be allowed to continue under heightened FAA surveillance and checks. The downgrade also means that reciprocal code-sharing arrangements between US and Malaysian airlines are no longer permitted.

High court clarifies aviation regulator's dispute resolution jurisdiction
Malaysia | 07 August 2019

The Kuala Lumpur High Court recently granted summary judgment for a combined sum exceeding RM40 million for outstanding passenger service charges. In coming to this decision, the court dealt with the jurisdiction of the nation's aviation regulator to resolve disputes between aviation service providers prescribed under the Malaysian Aviation Commission Act 2015.

Judicial review leave principles reaffirmed as high court dismisses AirAsia's leave application
Malaysia | 10 July 2019

The Kuala Lumpur High Court recently dismissed a judicial review leave application brought by AirAsia Berhad and AirAsia X Berhad (collectively, AirAsia) against the Malaysian Aviation Commission, with Malaysia Airports (Sepang) Sdn Bhd being named as the second respondent. AirAsia argued that the passenger service charge rates prescribed in the regulations were ceiling rates rather than fixed rates and, as such, AirAsia was not required to pay the revised amount.