Malaysian court rejects airline's demand to drop MH370 case

Court rejects Malaysia Airline's demand to drop suit by relatives of passengers from flight MH370, which disappeared with 239 people on board in 2014

Photo by: AP
Photo by: AP

A man walks past a mural of flight MH370 in Shah Alam outside Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on February 23, 2016.

Updated Mar 31, 2016

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 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.

TRTWorld, Reuters