📈 69% of S&P 500 stocks beating the index - a historic record! Pick the best ones with AI.See top stocks

Court dismisses Malaysia Airlines' bid to strike out MH370 suit

Published 30/03/2016, 08:33 pm
© Reuters.  Court dismisses Malaysia Airlines' bid to strike out MH370 suit

KUALA LUMPUR, March 30 (Reuters) - A Malaysian court on Wednesday dismissed a bid by national flag carrier Malaysia Airlines Berhad (MAB) to throw out a suit filed by relatives of three passengers who went missing on flight MH370, opening the way for other relatives to sue the airline.

MH370 disappeared on a flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing on March 8, 2014, with 239 passengers and crew on board.

More than 50 suits have been filed in the Malaysian courts over the plane's disappearance, while others have been filed in the United States, Australia, and China.

The Kuala Lumpur High Court ruling is likely to come as a relief for relatives, many of whom had feared they would not be able to get compensation from Malaysia Airlines Systems (MAS) after it transferred all its assets and operations to MAB in a restructuring exercise last year.

MAB had argued that it had no liability as it was set up eight months after the aircraft disappeared.

But the court did not accept that, instead ruling that MAB's liability would be determined in a trial, government lawyer Alice Loke Yee Ching told reporters.

"It was not plain and obvious that MAB is not a proper party (to the suit). That should only be determined by the full trial," she said.

The suit ruled on on Wednesday was filed by two teenagers whose parents and older brother were on the plane on the ill-fated flight.

It will be the first case against the airline to be heard in Malaysia, more than two years after the plane went missing.

The court, however, dismissed the teenagers' bid to also hold the Malaysian government and two of its entities liable for the plane's disappearance.

The family's lawyer, Sangeet Kaur Deo, told reporters the court had ruled that while the government had a duty of care to the plaintiffs, "there was no breach of that duty".

She said the family would appeal the court's decision.

Latest comments

Risk Disclosure: Trading in financial instruments and/or cryptocurrencies involves high risks including the risk of losing some, or all, of your investment amount, and may not be suitable for all investors. Prices of cryptocurrencies are extremely volatile and may be affected by external factors such as financial, regulatory or political events. Trading on margin increases the financial risks.
Before deciding to trade in financial instrument or cryptocurrencies you should be fully informed of the risks and costs associated with trading the financial markets, carefully consider your investment objectives, level of experience, and risk appetite, and seek professional advice where needed.
Fusion Media would like to remind you that the data contained in this website is not necessarily real-time nor accurate. The data and prices on the website are not necessarily provided by any market or exchange, but may be provided by market makers, and so prices may not be accurate and may differ from the actual price at any given market, meaning prices are indicative and not appropriate for trading purposes. Fusion Media and any provider of the data contained in this website will not accept liability for any loss or damage as a result of your trading, or your reliance on the information contained within this website.
It is prohibited to use, store, reproduce, display, modify, transmit or distribute the data contained in this website without the explicit prior written permission of Fusion Media and/or the data provider. All intellectual property rights are reserved by the providers and/or the exchange providing the data contained in this website.
Fusion Media may be compensated by the advertisers that appear on the website, based on your interaction with the advertisements or advertisers.
© 2007-2024 - Fusion Media Limited. All Rights Reserved.