KUALA LUMPUR – The high court here has set August 16 to decide on MYAirline’s application to bin a suit filed by Malaysia Airports Sdn Bhd and Malaysia Airports (Sepang) Sdn Bhd over unpaid fees amounting to RM17.7 million.
Judge Gan Techiong fixed the date after hearing submissions from lawyer Nasema Jalaludheen, who appeared for MYAirline today, while the plaintiffs were represented by lawyers Shannon Rajan and Eric Gabriel Gomez.
Previously, the defendant was represented by Messrs Chetan Jethwani & Company. However, the law firm withdrew from the suit in February this year, which led to Nasema being appointed as the defendant’s representative in April.
The plaintiffs filed the suit on October 18 last year, via Messrs Skrine, claiming that MYAirline did not pay outstanding fees for airport facilities to Malaysia Airports and Malaysia Airports (Sepang).
These fees include passenger service charges, passenger security service charges, aeroplane landing, aircraft parking, aerobridge, check-in counter as well as late payment charges.
They claimed that MYAirline owed Malaysia Airports RM9,111,402.94 and its Sepang subsidiary RM8,636,150.08 in arrears, totalling RM17,747,553.12.
Through this suit, the plaintiffs sought this amount from the sole defendant, as well as any further outstanding airport charges due and payable by the defendant, to be assessed, along with general damages.
They also seek an interest rate of 5% per year on the damages awarded by the court from the date the claim was filed to the date of full settlement, as well as costs and other relief deemed fit by the court.
Subsequently, on November 9, the plaintiffs filed for the court’s summary judgment after claiming that the defendant had not filed its defence at that time.
However, on November 24, MYairline filed an application to strike out the suit, claiming that the plaintiff should have resorted to mediation for any dispute, as stated in the Malaysian Aviation Commission (Mavcom) Act 2015, which they claimed never took place.
“Therefore, the present action by the plaintiff is invalid or premature as they have not complied with and availed themselves of the statutory dispute resolution mechanism.”
The plaintiffs, in responding to the striking-out application, argued that the dispute resolution mechanism under the Mavcom Act was not applicable to this matter, as MyAirline was not an aviation service provider as defined under the legislation.
The judge also stated today that if the striking-out application were to be dismissed, the court would proceed to hear the plaintiffs’ application for summary judgment on August 16.
On October 12 last year, MYAirline suddenly announced that it had suspended its operations effective immediately, citing financial pressure. – June 28, 2024