Go Back
Court Notices published in Govt Gazette No. 18,954 of the 14th August, 2012
01/01/2012
Notice 1355
1355IT IS hereby notified that in virtue of the powers conferred on it by Section 257 of the Civil Code, the Court of Revision of Notarial Acts, by a Decree dated the 9th day of August 2012, and this after a written plea Numbered 58/2012, ordered:
The correction of the Act of Birth of Valerie Vella, bearing number 8699 of the year 1936, under the column titled ‘Name or names by which the child is to be called’, the name “Valeria ”,cancelled and substituted by the name“Valerie”, so to read “Valerie Vella”.
Mary Josette Musù
f/ Registrar
Court of Revision of Notarial Acts
Notice 1356
1356By decree given by the CIVIL COURT, FIRST HALL on 8th August 2012, on the application of FOCAL MARITIME CO. LTD., Monday, 24th September, 2012 at 10.00 a.m. has been fixed for the SALE BY AUCTION to be held at EXPRESS TRAILERS LIMITED, TRIQ ĦAL FARRUĠ, LUQA of the following items seized from the property of TOP HAT CO. LTD.
Machines, equipment and furniture related to sewing work.
N.B. The said objects will be sold as described in the acts of file number 32/12.
Kevin Caruana
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1357
1357By means of an application filed in the Civil Court of Voluntary Jurisdiction Section, on the 18th May 2012, Application number 344/2012 by Saviour Aquilina and others, Mary Ciantar daughter of Giuseppe Aquilina and Teresa neé Agius born in Cospicua, holding identity card number 168927(M) was INTERDICTED by means of a decree given on the 2nd August 2012.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar, Civil Court and Tribunals
Notice 1358
1358By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal of the 25th April 2012, the publication of the following extract was ordered for the purpose of service in terms of Article 187(3) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12).
Go plc (C22334) of Telgħet Spencer, Marsa, MRS 1950,filed a Claim on the 30th January 2012whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Rafael Stucke (I.D. 31336A) ofJasmin, Flat 2, Triq Antonio Sciortino, Msida, to pay theplaintiff company the sum of €359.97 which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With costs and legal interest.
The case (Claim Number 57/12VG2) is put off on the 18th September 2012 at 1.00 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1359
1359By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal of the 7th November 2011, the publication of the following extract was ordered for the purpose of service in terms of Article 187(3) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12).
Architect Frank Giordmaina Medici (I.D. 681249M) of Property House, 50, Mannarino Road, Birkirkara, filed a Claim on the 25th July 2011 whereby he asked the Tribunal to condemn Lino Cassar of Richmond, Flat 3, Triq il-Mitħna, Birkirkara, to pay the plaintiff the sum of €1,116 which amount is due to the plaintiff.
The case (Claim Number 609/11DMA) is put off on the 19th September 2012 at 12.30 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1360
1360By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal of the 2nd July 2012, the publication of the following extract was ordered for the purpose of service in terms of Article 187(3) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12).
Go plc (C22334) ofTelgħet Spencer, Marsa MRS 1950,filed a Claim on the 15th March 2012 whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Jane Bakoush (I.D. 83365M) of60, Flat 1, Triq l-Isptar, Il-Belt Valletta, to pay the plaintiff company the sum of €494.15 which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With costs and legal interest.
The case (Claim Number 225/12VG2) is put off on the 18th September 2012 at 1.00 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1361
1361By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal of 7th May 2012, the publication of the following extract was ordered for the purpose of service in terms of Article 187(3) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12).
James Camilleri & Son Limited (C7679) of 98, Cross Road, Marsa MRS 1542, filed a Claim on the 13th March 2012 whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Helmut Pottag of 59, Triq il-Kapuċċini, Floriana, to pay the plaintiff company the sum of €622.05 which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With costs and interests.
The case (Claim Number 211/12YMS) is put off on the 27th September 2012 at 12.30 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1362
1362By means of a decree given on the 17th July 2012 by the Court of Appeal, in the records of the Writ of Summons Number 206/99 AE, in the names Dominic Zerafa et vs Carmelo Buhagiar et, the following publication was orderedfor the purposeof service of the respondent Raymond Agius pro et noe, in terms of Article 187(3) of Cap. 12.
By means of an Application of Appeal filed in the Court of Appeal, in the records of the writ of summons number 206/99 AE, Dominic and Monica spouses Zerafa, Raymond and Marthese spouses Vassallo, Ivan and Rita spouses Bonello, Paolo and Yvonne spouses Buhagiar, John and Marianna spouses Fenech and the company Grezzju Patignott Limited vs Carmelo Buhagiar, George Buhagiar, Catherine Buhagiar, Pawla Buhagiar – and by decree of the 2nd October 2006, Advocate Anthony Cutajar and Legal Procurator Luisa Tufigno as curators of the same Pawla Buhagiar who died during the course of the proceedings, Joseph Cassar in the name of the company Cranes & Commercial Sales Limited, already known as Joseph Cassar Commercial Plant and Service Limited, and Salvatore Schembri in his own name and in the name of the company Seaview Construction Limited and Raymond Agius in his own name and in the name of the company Octagon Real Estate and Development Limited, as well as Mary wife of Salvatore Schembri and Felicita sive Phyllis wife of Raymond Agius for any interest they may have, on the 28th November 2011, the applicants respectfully pleaded:
That the plaintiffs filed the cause in the names premised before the First Hall Civil Court, whereby they premised:
That by means of a preliminary agreement drawn by Notary Dr Carmel Mangion, on the 25th November 1994, the defendants Carmelo, Catherine, George and Pawla brothers and sisters Buhagiar, bound themselves to sell to the defendant company Cranes & Commercial Sales Ltd, at that time known as Joseph Cassar Commercial Plant and Service Ltd, a portion of land in Zabbar, of the area of cirka 1.9 tumoli, forming part of the land ‘Ta’ Ħabel ix-Xagħra’, with the pacts therein listed.
That by means of another preliminary agreement drawn up by the same Notary Dr Carmel Mangion, on the 3rd December 1994, the same defendant company Cranes & Commercial Sales Ltd, bound itself to sell the same portion of land above mentioned to the defendant Salvatore Schembri in representation of the defendant company Seaview Construction Ltd with the pacts therein listed.
That by means of another preliminary agreement dated 23rd February 1995, drawn up by Notary Dr Pierre Falzonn, the same Salvatore Schembri in representation ofthe company Seaview Construction Ltd, bound itself to sell the same portion of land to the defendant Raymond Agius, in representation of the defendant company Octagon Real Estate and Development Limited, with all the pacts therein indicated.
That by means of another preliminary agreement drawn up on the 24th February 1995, by Notary Dr Pierre Cassar, the defendant Raymond Agius in representation of the defendant company Octagon Real Estate and Development Limited, bound itself to pay the plaintiffs Dominic and Monica spouses Zerafa, part of the same portion of land above described towards the price indicatedwhich the same spouses Zerafa had long paid to Raymond Agius.
That by means ofanother preliminary agreement drawn up on the 17th March1995, by Notary Dr Peter Carbonaro, the same defendantRaymondAgius in representation of the defendant company Octagon Real Estate and Development Limited, bound himself to sell tothe plaintiffs Paolo and Yvonne spouses Buhagiar, the plots number four (4) and five (5) of the same land above mentioned.
That the plaintiffs paid the said Raymond Agius nomine, the sums indicated in this application on the 17th March 1995 and 31st May 1995 and the preliminary agreement was extended to the 3rd December 1997.
That by means of another preliminary agreement drawn up by Notary Dr Mario Bugeja, on the 21st March 1995, the same defendant Raymond Agius in representation of the defendant company Octagon Real Estate and Devlopment Limited, bound itself to sell to the plaintiffs Ivan and Rita spouses Bonello, the plot number two (2) of the land above mentioned towards the price and pacts therein indicated.
That by means of another preliminary agreement drawn up by Notary Dr Pierre Falzon, on the 23rd March 1995, the same Raymond Agius in representationof the defendant company Octagon Real Estateand Development Limited, bound itself to pay to the plaintiffs John and Marianna spouses Fenech, the plot number three (3) of the same land above mentioned towards the price and pacts indicated in this application.
That by means of another preliminary agreement drawn up by Notary Dr George Cassar, on the 13th April 1995, the same defendant Raymond Agius in representation of the defendant company Octagon Real Estate and Development Limited, bound itself to pay to the plaintiffs Raymond and Marthese spouses Vassallo, the plots number four (4) and five (5) which were subsequentlysubstituted by the plots number six (6) and seven (7) of the same portion of land above mentioned, towards the price and conditions therein indicated.
That by means of another preliminary agreement drawn up by Notary Dr Pierre Cassar, on the 12th May 1995, the samedefendant Raymond Agius in representation of the defendant company Octagon Real Estate and Development Limited, bound itself to sell to theplaintiff company Grezzju Patignott Limited, the plot number eight (8) of the land above mentioned and towards the price and pacts therein indicated.
That by means of three other private writings dated 10th December 1997, 17th June 1998 and 22nd December 1998, the same defendant Raymond Agius in representation of the defendant company Octagon Real Estate and Development Limited, extended all the preliminary agreements above mentioned with all the plaintiffs till the 31st December 1998.
That by means of a judicial letter of the 30th July 1997, the plaintiffs called upon the defendants brothers and sisters Buhagiar, in order to take care to carry out their obligation so that the projected roads are opened but these remained in default.
That despite of the extension of the preliminary agreements made by the private writings Doc J, K and L the plaintiffs were made to understandthat the defendant Raymond Agius had not extended the preliminary agreement that the defendant had with thedefendant Salvatore Schembri on behalf ofthe company Seaview Construction Ltd.
That if this is the case the action of the defendants Raymond Agius proprio et nomine and possibily that of Salvatore Schembri proprio et nomine, amounts to fraudulent action and/or gross negligent in regard to the plaintiffs.
That furthermore the defendant Salvatore Schembri was fully aware of the existing preliminary agreements between the defendant Raymond Agius nomine and the plaintiffs, so much so that he also recieved directly payments due by some of the plaintiffs, due on the preliminary agreements.
That if it results that the land cannot be sold to the plaintiffs, the latter shall suffer damages which consist both in the expenses which some of them disbursed regarding the same land, during the course of the preliminary agreements, and in the interests lost on the funds which are in the possessionof the defendants Agius proprio et nomine and Schembri proprio et nomine.
That by means of a judicial letter of the 30th December 1998, filed, by allthe plaintiffs against all the defendants,the plaintiffs whilst informing the defendants with the assignment in their favour of the rights resulting from the preliminary agreements existing between them, called upon them to come forward to the signing and publication of the definitive deeds of transfer of the land/ plots in question.
That despite of this the defendants remained in default.
That consequently the plaintiffs asked the First Hall Civil Court so that:
1. It declares and decides that the prelimnary agreements above referred to are still valid and binding.
2. Condemn the defendants or either of whom to come forward to the publication of the definitive contract/contracts of sale to the plaintiffs on a day, place and time that shall be fixed for this purpose.
3. Appoint a Notary to recieve the deed/relative deeds and curators to appear on such act/acts eventually in the default of the defendants.
4. Subsidiarily in case that it shall be determined that the respective transfers are no longer possible, it condemns the defendants or either of whom to refund to the plaintiffs the amount paid by them on account of the price agreed. The relative interests and saving if necessary a declaration in regard to the defendants or either of whom that the definitive acts are no longer possible due to fraudulent acts or due to their negligence, that sum that shall be liquidated by way of damages which the plaintiffs suffered due to the said acts.
With costs ...omissis... the defendant summoned so that a reference to his evidence be made.
That the defendant company Seaview Construction Limitedpleaded that:
...omissis...
That the defendants Salvatore and Mary Schembri pleaded that:
...omissis...
That the defendants brothers and sisters Buhagiar pleaded that:
...omissis...
That the defendant company Cranes and Commercial Sales Limited, pleaded that it has no juridical or legal relationship with the plaintiffs.
That the defendant Raymond Agius proprio and in the name of the company Octagon Real Estate and Development pleaded that;
...omissis...
That the defendant Felicita sive Phyllis Agius brought forward the plea that she should be freed from the observance of the judgement, with costs, because she is legally separated from her husband Raymond Agius, has no interest in these procedures and does not deal in lands.
That Advocate Dr. Anthony Cutajar and P.L. Luisa Tufigno, as curators of Pawla Buhagiar (who died during the proceedings) pleaded that at this stage they are not aware of the facts of the cause.
That by means of a partial judgement given by the same First Hall Civil Court, on the 7th November 2011, the Court provided by:
...omissis...
That furthermore the Court, put off the hearing of the cause to the 6th February 2012, so that on that day the parties inform the Court, whether the contracts shall have been published and if it be the case the hearing continued for the purpose of the fourth demand of the plaintiffs.
That the applicants felt aggrieved by this partial judgement and because such judgement falls with the terms of article 231 (2) of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta, they are humbly filing this appeal before this Honourable Court.
That the grievance of the plaintiff appellants is clear and manifest and consists in that hereunder submitted.
That the first grievance of the appellants is the decisionof the Court of First Instance which freed the defendant Raymond Agius in his personal capacity from the observance of the judgement.
That from the proof and the conclusions and consideration of the judgement appealed it results that although the preliminary agreements between the company of the same Raymond Agius namely Octagon Real Estate and Development Limited, are still binding between the same company and each one of the plaintiffs, such preliminary agreements can never bring about the conclusion of the sale prospected and promised in each preliminary agreement between the said company and each of the plaintiffs because the preliminary agreement between that company and the company Seaview Construction Limited, was not extended and thus is no longer binding.
That although the Court of First Instance, attributed the default above mentioned to the company Octagon Real Estate and Development Limited, the default was committed by a physical person, namely the defendant Raymond Agius and not the company Octagon Real Estate and Development Limited.
...omissis...
That it is worth to note that as results from the records the said Raymond Agius although he knew that the preliminary agreement of his company with the company Seaview Construction Limited, was not renewedhe still fraudulently renewed his various preliminary agreements with the plaintiffs.
...omissis...
The second grievance refers to the freedom from the observance of the judgement of the defendant Salvatore Schembri both in his own name and in ther name of the company Seaview Construction Limited.
...omissis...
That the third grievance refers to the fact that the Court of First Instance condemned the plaintiffs with the judicial expenses of the defendants who were freed from the observance of the judgements instead of the defendant Ray Agius proprio et nomineand Salvu Schembri proprio et nomine.
That in this cause there were a series of preliminary agreements on preliminary agreements and it was essential that the owners of the land the signatories of all the preliminary agreements are in the cause so that they be boundwith the final judgement because otherwise a judgement which orders the transfer of the land to the plaintiffs cannot be executed.
...omissis...
Apart from this it results very clearly how even the Court of First Instance in the judgement appealed,that the preliminary agreements between the plaintiffs and the company Octagon Real Estate and Development Limited, are still binding although the same Court, decided, that the preliminary agreement between the latter company and that of the defendant Salvu Schembri (Seaview Construction Limited)has no longer any legal validity due to default on the part of the company of Ray Agius to proceed according to the provisions contemplated in article 1357 of the Civil Code.
That thus in view of the above, the judicial expenses ofthe defendants who were freed from the observance of the judgement or who at least after the decision of this Honourable Court, remained definitely freed from the observance of the judgement, should have been entirely attributed to the company Octagon Real Estate and Development Limited, or even Ray Agius personally or even Seaview Construction Limited or even to Salvu Schembri and his wife Mary personally.
Thus the applicants whilst referring to the proof produced and that which can be produced, at this stage of Appeal, humbly pray that this Honourable Court reforms the judgement appealedby revoking it in so far as it freed the defendants Ray Agius, Seaview Construction Limited and Salvu and Mary spouses Schembri from the observance of the judgement and by condemning the same defendants just mentioned, or either of whom to all the judicial expensesof those defendants which shall be effectively freed from the observance of the judgementthrough the decision in this Appeal.
With costs of both instances against the respondent defendants.
Appellants: 335, Coraf Reef, Triq San Tumas, Tarxien.
Respondents: 1. ...omissis...
2. ...omissis...
3. ...omissis...
4. ...omissis...
5. ...omissis...
6. ...omissis...
7. Raymond Agius pro et nomine - 86, Triq Manwel Dimech, Sliema.
8. ...omissis...
9. ...omissis...
The Appeal Application in the names Dominic Zerafa et vs Carmelo Buhagiar et, application number 206/1999 AE, was put off for hearing to the 9th October 2012 at noon.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LL.D.
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals