KUALA LUMPUR: A Palestinian ambassador's son, who was involved in a vehicle collision here, was not liable to be sued as he is protected by diplomatic immunity, a High Court ruled recently.

Judicial commissioner Dr Suzana Muhamad Said made the ruling after affirming the lower court's judgment in dismissing Donisyah Putra Amry's suit against Mohammed W.A. Abuali and the Palestinian embassy.

Donisyah filed the suit for general and special damages after sustaining injuries in a vehicle collision with Mohammed, who was driving a car bearing a diplomatic registration plate.

Mohammed was issued with a traffic summons and paid the RM300 fine.

Suzana said both defendants had successfully proved their protection under the Diplomatic Privileges (Vienna Convention) Act 1966 (Act 636) and the Consular Relations (Vienna Convention) Act 1999 (Act 595).

The judge said although the plaintiff had questioned whether Mohammed should be protected by diplomatic immunity (as Article 32 of the Schedule said the immunity of diplomatic agents may be waived), the waiver must always be expressed.

"This court is of the opinion that since there is no waiver under Article 32 of the Schedule, the diplomatic immunity of D1 (Mohammed) remains.

"It was never disputed that he is a family member of the ambassador, the son, and as such, is protected under Act 636 and Act 595, respectively.

"Furthermore, it was also not disputed that the plaintiff has been compensated personally by the defendants, of which the plaintiff admitted of receiving the same," she said in her judgment dated May 10.

Suzana also ruled that the embassy was protected by diplomatic immunity, rendering the court without jurisdiction, and thus the case should be dismissed accordingly.

She said it was not disputed that the embassy's car involved was insured, and the plaintiff had the right to claim from the insurance company of the registered vehicle.

"Thus, the plaintiff was not left without a remedy. The defendants have succeeded in proving that they are protected under Act 636 and 595.

"The plaintiff's claim is obviously unsustainable and ought to be struck out," she added.

The court also awarded RM3,000 in cost to the defendants.