Grab appeals $208,000 Vinasun compensation ruling
In this article (5)
Grab has appealed a verdict by a Vietnamese court to pay compensation to domestic taxi firm Vinasun for causing it losses. Arguing that the order to pay VND4.8 billion ($208,000) by the first instance court was unlawful, the Singapore-headquartered Grab has asked the appellate court to quash the case. It wants the court to quash the verdict on the ground that the HCMC People’s Court had seriously violated procedures and dismiss the case. The court had no jurisdiction to hear the case, handed a verdict that exceeded the scope of the lawsuit and did not summon the witnesses it had sought, the company said.
The ride-hailing firm maintained it did not commit any wrong against Vinasun. If the appellate court is not willing to dismiss the case, it should at least amend the earlier ruling, ruling that Grab does not carry on a transportation business and has not violated any laws, and dismissing Vinasun’s claims.
Grab said the court did not fully and objectively evaluate the facts and evidence of the case, but instead relied on biased information based on an inaccurate assessment of losses done by a court-appointed inspection company.
“Vinasun could not prove its actual damages and/or the causal link between any of Grab’s alleged violations and Vinasun’s alleged damages,” Grab said in the statement.
The court verdict came after an 18-month battle between Grab and Vinasun since last June when Vinasun filed a suit saying Grab’s illegal activities had caused it nearly VND42 billion ($1.8 million) in losses.
The latest draft of a Ministry of Transport decree requires firms offering taxi services to register as taxi firms before they can apply ride-hailing technology.
This means Grab and other ride-hailing firms have to register afresh as taxi businesses and comply with legal requirements related to operating licenses, drivers’ profiles and taxes.
Questions & Answers
Q.What is Grab's primary argument for appealing the court's decision?
What is Grab's primary argument for appealing the court's decision?
Grab argues the initial court's order to pay compensation was unlawful. It claims the HCMC People’s Court seriously violated procedures, lacked jurisdiction, and exceeded the lawsuit's scope, failing to summon requested witnesses.
Q.What specific issues did Grab raise about how the court evaluated the case?
What specific issues did Grab raise about how the court evaluated the case?
Grab stated the court did not objectively evaluate facts and evidence. It relied on biased information from a court-appointed company and found Vinasun could not prove actual damages or a causal link to Grab's alleged violations.
Q.How long had the legal dispute between Grab and Vinasun been ongoing before the initial verdict?
How long had the legal dispute between Grab and Vinasun been ongoing before the initial verdict?
The legal dispute between Grab and Vinasun had lasted 18 months before the initial verdict. Vinasun filed its lawsuit last June, alleging Grab's activities caused significant losses.
Q.What is the new requirement for ride-hailing firms according to the Ministry of Transport's draft decree?
What is the new requirement for ride-hailing firms according to the Ministry of Transport's draft decree?
The new draft decree requires firms offering taxi services to register as taxi firms before using ride-hailing technology. This means companies like Grab must register as taxi businesses and meet legal requirements for licences, drivers, and taxes.
Reader pulse
What's the likely outcome?
18,212 votes so far