The High Court allowed the application by Uber with the freedom for Uber to re-file the same application on the grounds that the merit of the application had not been heard yet.
Counsel R Kengadharan, who represented the 102 taxi drivers, told the media after the proceedings in the chamber of the High Court senior assistant registrar Ti Pei Si, the court had also ordered Uber to pay costs of RM3,500 to the plaintiffs (102 taxi drivers).
He said the court fixed Sept 26 to hear SPAD’s application to strike out the suit filed by the group of taxi drivers who claimed SPAD failed to take proactive measures in banning the activities and operations of the online taxis.
He said the application would be heard before Judge Su Geok Yiam.
On Dec 30, 2015, Klang Valley Taxi Drivers Action Committee chairman Zailani Isausuludin, 51, with 101 taxi drivers, filed a suit against SPAD.
Among others, they demanded a declaration that SPAD ban Uber, GrabCar and Blacklane operations, which were online taxi services, because they were not subjected to the Land Public Transport Act 2010.
They applied for an injunction for SPAD not to validate the activity and operations of the three online taxi services and issue a guideline and circular subject to the terms of agreements to ban the operations and activities of Uber, GrabCar and Blacklane services.
In their statement of claim, all the taxi drivers claimed the operations by Uber, GrabCar and Blacklane had impacted badly on the local taxi service industry because the fares of the online taxi services were far lower than that of metered taxis.
They claimed the operation to eradicate the illegal ‘pirate taxis’ conducted by SPAD and the Road Transport Department were seen as ineffective, and as long as the ‘booking provider’ applications of Uber, GrabCar and Blacklane were not checked, it would turn the local taxi service industry topsy-turvy.
The plaintiffs also claimed that SPAD failed and was negligent in taking proactive measures to ban the three online services, to the point that all rights and interests of the plaintiffs had been side-lined by SPAD.