The court emphasized that disputes under the Malaysian Aviation Commission Act must be resolved through statutory mediation before any court action can be initiated.

Introduction

[1] The Plaintiff has demands and repeatedly requesting for payment of the outstanding parking, landing and late payment charges for the sum of RM1,070,411.21 for all the airports where the Plaintiff provided Defendant with aviation and airport services. Due to the failure, refusal and/or neglected to pay to the Plaintiff, this suit is filed (18 April 2023).

[2] The Defendant had entered the appearance (10 May 2023) and the defence is filed on 12 June 2023.

[3] On 22 May 2023, the Plaintiff has filed its Amended Statement of Claim.

[4] The Defendant's application to strike out the Plaintiff suit is filed on 12 June 2023 (encl 22) pursuant to O 18 r 19(1)(b), (1)(c) and/or (1)(d) Rules of Court 2012.

[5] The grounds stated by the Defendant are that, the Plaintiff claims are scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; and/or embarrasing; and/or abuse of the process of the Court. The Defendant also gave the alternative for the claims to be stayed or adjourned pending the disposal of the application of the dispute resolution provisions set out in ss 74 to 78 of the Malaysian Aviation Commission Act 2015 (Act 771). The affidavit in support for application is filed.

[6] The Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff has not complied with the procedure for dispute resolution as set out in ss 74 to 78 of the Act 771. As providers of aviation services as defined in s 2 of Act 771, the Plaintiff and Defendant have statutory obligation to mediate any dispute regarding any matter under the Act. In the event that there is no resolution of the dispute through mediation, the Malaysian Aviation Commission (after this is refer to as "the Commission") shall commence to decide on dispute and shall provide a reasoned decision which is enforceable through registration in the High Court and appealable by any person aggrieved by the decision.

[7] On 29 August 2022, I allowed the striking out. The Plaintiff appeals.

The Statement Of Claim

[8] The Plaintiff and the Defendant are companies incorporated in Malaysia under the Companies Act 1965 . The Plaintiff manages, operates, maintains and provides aviation and passenger related services at 21 designated airports in Malaysia.

[9] The Defendant is involved in the business of aerial transportation operator.

[10] The Plaintiff pleaded that:

(a) there is a binding contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant via Conditions of Use for the Designated Airports 2022. This document is available at the Plaintiff's website.

(b) upon request by the Defendant, the Plaintiff has provided aviation and airport services including parking and landing facilities to the Defendant at the airports ie Kota Kinabalu, Penang, Kuching, Labuan, Miri and Tawau.

(c) the Plaintiff refer and rely on the provisions, terms and conditions as stipulated under cls 1(b), 2, 3, 4, para 1 and 2 of Schedule 3 and Note to Schedule 3 of Conditions of Use for the Designated Airports 2022. The Plaintiff also refer to Conditions of Use for the Designated Airports years 2017 and 2019.

(d) the Defendant has no objection and has accepted the terms and conditions as stated in that Conditions of Use for the Designated Airports 2022, 2019 and 2017.

[11] Pursuant to Act 771 and the regulations enacted under , the Commission is granted the power to regulate charges for aviation services amongst others, parking and landing charges.

[12] The Plaintiff claims for the parking and landing charges from the Defendant is made legally as provided by Act 771 and the Malaysian Aviation Commission (Aviation Services Charges) Regulation