The court affirmed the supremacy of statutory rates set by the Malaysian Aviation Commission over disputes between aviation service providers.

[47] It is resoundingly clear from the excerpt above that the 'dispute' referred to in s 74 refers to dispute arising between two or more providers of aviation services. Now, in the extreme contrary, the Defendant has obviously mounted the wrong dispute against the wrong party. In actuality, whatever issue or dispute the Defendant had regarding the imposition of the increased PSC rate is instead the Defendant's dispute against the Commission and not at all the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is merely enforcing what is statutorily provided. Even the Plaintiff is devoid of any authority to go against the statutory grain.

[48] If indeed the Defendant genuinely disputes the imposition of the increased PSC rate, then the Defendant should have mounted a challenge against the statutory decision laid down by the Commission and not vex the Plaintiff who is merely enforcing what is statutorily incumbent upon the Plaintiff to claim. The rate is set by the Commission and not the Plaintiff. The Defendant in actuality is at odds with the Commission's statutory decision and not at all the Plaintiff's claim. This Court cannot stand with the Defendant's attempt to bend the law to suit its narrative. Instead of faulting the Plaintiff for allegedly failing to adhere to the Mavcom Act's dispute resolution mechanism, the Defendant should have accordingly moved its own initiative to challenge the Commission's decision. This Court is in full agreement with the Plaintiff's counsel that the Defendant should have moved for a Judicial Review against the Commission's statutory decision years ago when the Increased PSC Rate was coined to be applicable. But even years afterwards, this is exactly what the Defendant has failed or outright refused to do. Instead of properly mounting a challenge against the Commission's decision, the Defendant now unnecessarily and unjustly vex the Plaintiff with the exact same issue the Defendant should have raised in a Judicial Review against the Commission. This Court shall not stand to allow such afterthought to be contended by the Defendant.

[49] Nevertheless, this Court needs to mention here that the Defendant ahd filed an application to seek leave to initiate judicial review proceeding against the Commission. However, it must be noted that the said application for leave was only filed on 14 May 2019, five (5) months after the Plaintiff commenced this present action against the Defendant. Be that as it may, the said Judicial Review application was dismissed by the High Court at leave stage on 25 June 2019.

[50] Thus, is the Defendant's challenge against the increased PSC rate a dispute falling within the ambit of s 74 of the Mavcom Act? This Court hesitates nothing to answer that question in the negative. Without an iota of doubt, the Defendant's actual dispute is not a dispute between two aviation service providers but instead a dispute against the statutory decision of a statutory body exercising a statutory duty by the Commission. Thus, the dispute resolution mechanism under s 74 of the Mavcom remains verily irrelevant to the Plaintiff's claim in the present suit.

[51] With all of the above in mind, it is actually sufficient for this Court to dismiss the Defendant's case in limine. Nonetheless, for the sake of completeness and to further solidify this Court's findings, this Court shall remain to delve into the other contentions raised by all parties.

Whether The Defendant's Contention That The PSC Rate Is A Negotiable Ceiling Rate A Genuine Contention Or Mere Afterthought

[52] Now, after determining that the Defendant ought not to be allowed to abuse the present proceeding as a backdoor Judicial Review against the Commission's statutory decisions, this Court shall (for the sake of completeness) delve into the Defendant's backdoor