The transport strike that paralysed Malta last week had serious effects on several companies, especially in the tourism sector, but if any claim for damages actually makes it to court, lawyers would encounter legal complications to prove their case, legal sources told The Times Business.
The four-day strike hit practically all sectors of the economy, but it was particularly felt by the tourism sector because of the lack of transport for clients and the English language school sector where students had to walk to school for up to two hours in the scorching sun.
Several organisations had warned they would be holding the strikers legally responsible for damages. Building firms said the strike cost them over €1 million a day.
The Federated Association of Travel and Tourism Agents was the first to file a judicial protest against the Transport Federation, holding it responsible for damages, followed by several tourism-related organisations and 12 construction companies.
Although these companies filed documents in court holding the federation responsible for damages they suffered during the four-day transport strike, none of these actually initiated a court case claiming damages.
If this were done, legal sources said, lawyers would encounter several legal difficulties to prove these claims.
If the industrial action was a legitimate one in the eyes of the law, then the federation or association that called it would be protected under the emplyment law. However, it is debatable whether the strike was legitimate, the sources added.
Another obstacle lawyers would come up against would be to prove that the violence during the strike and which is being pinpointed as one of the reasons why language schools and tour operators received cancellations was actually ordered by the organisation which is being held responsible. In court, the lawyers would be asked to identify the people who were behind the violence.
Such cases are very difficult to prove and on the basis of probability, such a court case would be lost, the legal sources said.
Meanwhile, a spokesman for the Malta Insurance Association said he had not received any report of claims by third parties for damages caused by the public transport vehicles, nor for damages such as loss of income.
The four-day strike hit practically all sectors of the economy, but it was particularly felt by the tourism sector because of the lack of transport for clients and the English language school sector where students had to walk to school for up to two hours in the scorching sun.
Several organisations had warned they would be holding the strikers legally responsible for damages. Building firms said the strike cost them over €1 million a day.
The Federated Association of Travel and Tourism Agents was the first to file a judicial protest against the Transport Federation, holding it responsible for damages, followed by several tourism-related organisations and 12 construction companies.
Although these companies filed documents in court holding the federation responsible for damages they suffered during the four-day transport strike, none of these actually initiated a court case claiming damages.
If this were done, legal sources said, lawyers would encounter several legal difficulties to prove these claims.
If the industrial action was a legitimate one in the eyes of the law, then the federation or association that called it would be protected under the emplyment law. However, it is debatable whether the strike was legitimate, the sources added.
Another obstacle lawyers would come up against would be to prove that the violence during the strike and which is being pinpointed as one of the reasons why language schools and tour operators received cancellations was actually ordered by the organisation which is being held responsible. In court, the lawyers would be asked to identify the people who were behind the violence.
Such cases are very difficult to prove and on the basis of probability, such a court case would be lost, the legal sources said.
Meanwhile, a spokesman for the Malta Insurance Association said he had not received any report of claims by third parties for damages caused by the public transport vehicles, nor for damages such as loss of income.