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.
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.
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.
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.
The Malaysian Aviation Commission Protection Code 2016 was recently amended. The amendments, which considered feedback from consumers and consultations with industry players, aim to promote greater transparency and fairness in dealings between airlines and passengers, which should allow consumers to enjoy monetary savings and make more informed decisions.
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.
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.
As air travel becomes more accessible to the public, especially with the proliferation of low-cost travel options, the issue of safeguarding consumers' interests has attracted increasing attention. The government has chosen to regulate airline service standards by introducing the Malaysian Aviation Consumer Protection Code. The code aims to strike the right balance between protecting passengers and industry competitiveness.
As Malaysia transitions into the third phase of the Movement Control Order (MCO Phase 3), the government has moved to allow additional economic sectors to operate during this period. This includes construction projects and services related to construction works. However, construction industry players that intend to resume operations during MCO Phase 3 should take note that they must comply with the third set of frequently asked questions issued by the Ministry of International Trade and Industry.
In its effort to contain the COVID-19 outbreak, the government has implemented the Movement Control Order (MCO) throughout Malaysia. The MCO has affected the performance of non-essential works, including works at project and construction sites where workers are required to stop work. Questions remain, including does the COVID-19 outbreak or the MCO constitute a force majeure event? And how does the outbreak or the MCO affect parties' rights and obligations in terms of timing and costs?
The Court of Appeal recently considered whether a pay-when-paid clause in a construction contract is void under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act. It found that pay-when-paid clauses under a construction contract drawn up before the enactment of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act will remain valid and not be affected by the introduction of Section 35, which prohibits any conditional payment clauses in construction contracts.
The Federal Court recently dealt with three broad issues under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act – namely, jurisdictional challenge, the exclusion of defences and the setting aside and staying of decisions. The decision has broad repercussions for the way that adjudications are conducted in Malaysia.