1. ) MARZAIDI BIN MOHAMMAD 2. ) Thaib Bin Mustafa (Membawa Tindakan Sebagai Wakil Litigasi Kepada Mustafa Bin Ab Samad (Si Mati) v MOHAMED AFFENDI BIN KHAIRUDDIN

Case Significance

Illustrates how the courts reconcile a Faraid order determining Islamic-law inheritance, private stakeholder and release agreements, the Montreal Convention 1999, and the dependency and estate claims under sections 7(2) and 7(5) of the Civil Law Act 1956 in distributing compensation for a crew member lost in the MH17 disaster: the Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiffs' appeal and set aside the High Court's disposition.

This Court of Appeal decision at Putrajaya, delivered in a judgment by Faizah Jamaludin JCA, concerns the distribution of aviation-disaster compensation among the heirs and next-of-kin of a crew member who died in the loss of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17. The proceedings arose from a suit in the High Court and reached the Court of Appeal as two cross-appeals heard together; this appeal was the appeal by the plaintiffs — a litigation representative suing on behalf of a minor beneficiary, and a litigation representative suing for the estate of the deceased crew member. The legal framework engaged a Faraid order determining the Islamic-law shares in the estate, a stakeholder agreement and a release agreement governing the compensation, the Montreal Convention 1999, and sections 7(2) and 7(5) of the Civil Law Act 1956, which govern claims for the benefit of dependants and the estate of a deceased person.

The Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiffs' appeal. Having considered the interplay between the Faraid order determining the entitlements of the legal heirs, the contractual arrangements in the stakeholder and release agreements, and the statutory scheme under sections 7(2) and 7(5) of the Civil Law Act 1956 read with the Montreal Convention 1999, the court concluded that the High Court's disposition could not stand. It set aside the decision of the High Court in the underlying suit and, allowing the plaintiffs' appeal while dismissing the defendant's related cross-appeal, gave directions including the filing of an amended statement of claim within a stipulated time. It ordered the defendant to pay costs of RM10,000 to both plaintiffs, subject to allocatur. The judgment is a significant illustration of how the courts reconcile Islamic inheritance under a Faraid order, private compensation agreements, and the statutory dependency and estate claims under the Civil Law Act 1956 in distributing compensation arising from an international aviation disaster.