Go Back
Court Notices published in Govt. Gazette No. 18,977 of the 18th October 2012
01/01/2012
Notice 1721
1721By decree given by the CIVIL COURT, FIRST HALL on 15th October 2012, on the application of ZAMMIT PACE DOTT. REMIGIO NOE, Monday, 19th November, 2012 at 11.00 a.m. has been fixed for the SALE BY AUCTION to be held at 72, PJAZZA SAN FRANĠISK, QORMI of the following items seized from the property of CAUCHI CARMELO.
Various pieces of furniture among which a corner sofa, a wall unit, kitchen cupboards, a table with four chairs and two bedroom suites, and other objects.
N.B. The said objects will be sold as described in the acts of file number 43/12.
Kevin Caruana
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1722
1722By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal of 21st August 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).
Matsurv & Associates Limited of 1, Corner Place, Triq iż-Żagħfran, Attard filed a Claim on the 3rd May 2012 whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Rita Schembri of Sardinella, Wardija Hill, Wardija, to pay the plaintiff company the sum of €1,100.94 which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With costs andinterests.
The case (Claim Number 336/12YMS) is put off on the 25th October 2012 at 12.30 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1723
1723By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal of 27th 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).
Vodafone Malta Limited(C-10865) of Vodafone House, Imsida Valley Road, Birkirkara filed a Claim on the 9th May 2012 whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn MP Service Co Ltd (C 49333) of 1, Triq Pawl Schembri, Tarxien, to pay the plaintiff company the sum of €2,082.12 which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With costs andinterests.
The case (Claim Number 359/12DMA) is put off on the 25th October 2012 at 12.30 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1724
1724By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal of 6th June 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).
Joseph Felice (I.D. 241729M) and Marina Felice (I.D. 258835M) of Casa Felice, Constitution Street, Mosta filed a Claim on the 11th April 2011 whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Notary Pierre Falzon of Flat 2, Landsbridge Mansions, Islet Promenade, Buġibba, to pay the plaintiffs the sum of €1,910.60 which amount is due to the plaintiffs.
With costs andlegal interests.
The case (Claim Number 294/12DMA) is put off on the 25th October 2012 at 12.30 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1725
1725By decree given by the CIVIL COURT, FIRST HALL on 15th October 2012, on the application of MALTA INDUSTRIAL PARKS LTD, Wednesday, 26th November, 2012 at 10.00 a.m. has been fixed for the SALE BY AUCTION to be held at KKW 200A, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, CORRADINO of the following items seized from the property of BIOCHEMICALS INTERNATIONAL LTD.
A quantity of office furniture and equipment, industrial machinery and other objects.
N.B. The said objects will be sold as described in the acts of file number 36/12.
KEVIN CARUANA
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1726
1726By means of a decree given on the 18th September 2012, by the Court of Appeal, in the records of the Notice number 262/2010 CSH, in the names Anthony Xuereb vs Debono Developments Ltd (C 988) the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent Anthony Xuereb, in terms of Article 187(3) of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta.
By means of an application of Appeal, filed, in the Court of Appeal, in the records of the Notice number 262/2010 CSH, Anthony Xuereb vs Debono Developments Ltd (C 988) on the 30th July 2012, the applicant Debono Developments Limited (C 988) respectfully pleaded;
That in virtue of a judgement of the 11th July 2012, in the cause above mentioned, the Court of Magistrates (Malta) saw the plaintiff’s application whereby he asked that;
The Court condemn the defendant company to pay the sum of (€4,800) representingthis sum balance of prices of construction works and ancillary works carried out by him following his request.
The Court order that the defendant company to pay the expenses.
That as regards these demands the defendant companyby means of a sworn application pleaded;
1. That in the first place the amount pretended by the plaintiff is exagerated.
2. That in the second place the certificate issued by Architect Muscat regarding these worksdoes not reflect the rates agreed and contains mistakes and should be avoided.
3. That in the third place the clause 3 of the contract of works between the parties specifically provided that the owner has the rightthat for valid reasonhe does not carry out all the work agreed without compensation and thus it was permissible that the rates be increasedas the work carried out was small.
4. That in the fourth place the plaintiff took and failed to return thirteen planks which the applicant company had to holdthe staircase walls.
5 ...omissis...
6 ...omissis...
Thus the Court of Magistrates (Malta) in virtue of a judgement of the 11th July 2012, ordered that the defendant company pay the plaintiff the pretended sum of €4800 and with interest from the date of the precautionery Garnishee Order number 2535/2010. The Court condemn also the defendant company to pay the expenses of the cause together with the costs of the precautionry Garnishee Order Number 2535/2010.
That the applicant felt aggrieved by this judgement and is humbly filing this appeal.
That the grievance is clear and manifest and consists in the following.
1.That in the first place the contract and its terms had to be respected.
2. That in the second place the bill of Architect Muscat had to be worked out according to the agreed rates and he had no right to increase the rates by 50% or 75%.
3. That in the third place and in any case it results that the Court was wrong when it based itself on the estimate of the Architect marked as Doc C which indicateda total of €9,820.85, the correct bill was that attached with his affidavit for a total €9312.29.
The First grievance.
That in this cause the only witnesses brought forward were the parties and Architect Muscat tried to mediate between them.
...omissis...
The evidence of Architect Muscat clearly shows that the dispute between the parties did not arise after the work was finished and the plaintiff presented his billbut arose from the beginning of the agreement.
It also resulted from the evidence of the same plaintiffwho soon noticed that it was impossible (according to the plaintiff)that all the work is carried out on the agreed rates.
It results that the contractor had agreed that he was not agreeingwith the rates from the very beginning and there were disputes regarding the price of work well before the works were finished.
With all respectif the plaintiff had not accepted the terms of the contract he had to stop working or formally ask for a variation.
Out Law is clear that a person cannot attack the validity of a condition when he had acquiesed to it. In the present case the plaintiff continued to work when he knew that the work will be much less from that originally prospected and that the rates were not going to change.
...omissis...
In the present case despite that the contractor declared that when he started to work he noticed from the beginningthat it will not be possible to carry out all the workat the agreed rates but instead of stopping or asking for an adjustment he continued to work.
Thus the applicant respectfully submits that the contract and the rates therein stipulated had also to be respected by the plaintiff.
The second grievance.
That the contract agreed between the parties provides that Architect Muscat who had to measure the workbut after the work is measured the rates agreed had to be applied.
Although the plaintiff alleged that his work could not be measured in fact the work could be measured by the Architect. But the Architectafter carrying out his measurementsincreased the rates agreed when he had no authorisation to do this.
The third grievance.
Without prejudice to the premised it results that in any case the balance established by the Court is erroneous and this in so far as the Honourable Court of First Instance applied the bill a fol 43. But this bill was not correct. It results that there were two bills exhibited in the process ( a fol 28 and a fol 43) which show a different value for the work carried out.
The fourth grievance.
The last grievance of the appellants is without prejudice to all the other grievances and relates to the expenses of the cause.
It should be pointed out that the applicant appellants had offered this amount to the plaintiffbut it was the same plaintiff who refused this payment. The difference between the parties was less than Euro 1,500 and thus there was no fear or dangerthat the applicant shall not be in a position to pay the plaintiff. Thus the plaintiff had no reason to issue the warrant twice and witholdvarious bills and the defendant had to bear useless expenses.
Furthermore as explained in the third grievance,the demand of the plaintiffis more than established by Architect Muscat and thus although the applicant does not agree with this bill he still cannot be condemned tobear all the costsof the cause when the Notice itself contains a mistake.
Thus the company Debono Developments Limited, whilst referring to the submissions and all the proof brought forward during the pleadings of this cause and reserves to bring forward that proof and to make all the further submissionspermitted by law asks this Honourable Court to revoke and cancel the judgement of the Court of Magistrates (Malta) in the names premised of the 11th July 2012 and instead pass on so that whilst it upholds the pleas of the applicant it rejects the plaintiff’s demands, with costs against the same plaintiffs.
Appellant: 43, Triq Birguma, Naxxar.
Services: ‘Tal-Qoton’ Triq il-Ġiżimin, Swieqi.
Adv. Frank Portelli,LL.D.
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1727
1727IT IS BEING NOTIFIED that by a decree dated 10th October, 2012 given by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Inquiry – (Magistrate Dott. Antonio Mizzi LL.D.) Compilation number 253/2012 in the case:
The Police
(Superintendent Paul Vassallo)
Versus:
GEORGE BUGEJA, 54 years, company director, son Carmel and Teresa neé Tabone, born in Imqabba on the 15th June, 1956 and residing at ‘Carter’, Number 5, Vjal il-Ħelsien, Żebbuġ and holder of Identity card number 421156(M) personally and as the director and as judicial representative of companies All Financial Services Ltd, having registration number (C 9893) and All Commercial Services bearing registration number (C 22531).
ORDERED the attachment in the hands of third parties in general all monies and other movable property due or pertaining or belonging to George Bugeja, All Financial Services Ltd (C 9893) and All Commercial Services (C 22531) and prohibits the said accused from transferring, pledging, hypothecating or otherwise disposing of any movable or immovable property in terms of Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Cap. 373 of the Laws of Malta and Section 23A of the Criminal Code, Cap. 9 of the Laws of Malta.
The Court ordered that the said accused may continue to receive the salary of one thousand, one hundred and sixty-six Euros (€1,166) a month which amount will not exceed the amount of fourteen thousand Euro (€14,000.00) per year and this in terms of Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Cap. 373 of the Laws of Malta.
Dr Elizabeth Quintano LLD.
Assistant Registrar, Criminal Courts and Criminal Tribunals