The Montreal Convention provides exclusive causes of action against carriers, ousting common law claims pertaining to international air carriage.

[1] These are grounds of judgment in respect of O 14A applications in connection with 13 cases relating to the disappearance of flight MH370. The particulars of the cases to which this judgment applies are set out in the appendix.

[2] The court directed Malaysian Airline System Berhad, a common defendant in all cases, to file applications under O 14A of the Rules of 2012 for the determination of two questions of law. In broad terms, the first question was whether the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air 1999 (the "Montreal Convention") and the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to International Carriage by Air 1929 (the "Warsaw Convention") provide exclusive causes of action against a carrier and, as a consequence, oust all common law causes of action. The second was whether the cap on liability for a dependency claim imposed by s 7 of the Civil Law Act 1956 applies in respect of a claim made under the Montreal Convention.

[3] These cases arise out of the disappearance on 8 March 2014 of a Boeing 777 bearing the registration number 9M-MRO and flight code MH370. At the material time, MH370 was operated by Malaysian Airline System Berhad. For ease of reference, it is referred to in this judgment as "MAS".

[4] In its formal applications under O 14A, MAS framed the following questions in connection with the scope of the Montreal Convention:

(a) Whether art 17(1) of the Montreal Convention provides an exclusive cause of action to claimants against the carrier in connection with an accident resulting in the loss of life of the passengers on board an aircraft in the course of international carriage by air as defined by that convention; and

(b) If (a) is answered in the affirmative, whether art 29 of the Montreal Convention precludes/pre-empts the availability of all common law causes of action against the carrier in respect of the loss of life of those passengers.

[5] In respect of suit WA-21NCVC-33-03/2016, the applicable treaty is the Warsaw Convention. Similar questions were posed in that case relating the scope of the Warsaw Convention.

[6] The following questions were framed in connection with the scope and applicability of s 7 of the Civil Law Act 1956 :

(a) Whether s 5 of the Carriage by Air Act 1974 read together with Third Schedule thereof operates to exclusively regulate the liability regime and/or the cause of action in relation to fatal aviation accidents in relation to the death of a passenger under art 17 of the Montreal Convention; and

(b) Whether recoverable damages as a result of any liability found under art 17 of the Montreal Convention would be governed by s 7 of the Civil Law Act 1956 being the operative domestic law in Malaysia regulating recoverable damages and assessment thereof for fatal accidents.

[7] It was not necessary to address the Warsaw Convention here as the plaintiffs in case WA-21NCVC-33-03/2016 do not dispute the applicability of s 7(3) of the Civil Law Act 1956 .

[8] Mr Ganesan Nethi, counsel for the plaintiffs in case WA-21NCVC-20-03/2016, and Ms Sangeet Kaur Deo, counsel for the plaintiffs in eight other cases, raised preliminary objections in connection with the O 14A applications. I deal first with those objections.

The Preliminary Objections

The Reasons For The Order 14A Applications

[9] In directing that MAS filed formal applications under O 14A of the Rules of 2012, the court was of the view that the determination of these questions would dispose of a part of the plaintiffs claims against MAS