Mur Lura
Court Notices published in Govt. Gazette No. 19,150 of the 11th October 2013
01/01/2013
Notice 1571
1571IT IS BEING NOTIFIED that by a decree dated 3rd October, 2013, given by the Court of Criminal Appeal– (Judge Hon. David Scicluna B.A. LL.D) after an application filed by the Registrar of Criminal Courts and Tribunals on the 3rd October, 2013, following an application by Antoine Debattista dated 27th August, 2013, in the case:
The Republic of Malta
versus:
ANTOINE DEBATTISTA, thirty three (33) years, today is 45 years, son of George and Elizabeth née Mifsud, born at Pietà on the 1st November, 1967, and residing at Flat 4, Maritno Court, Triq is-Swieqi, Swieqi, and holder of Identity Card No. 450867 (M);
Ordered the CANCELLATION of the attachment order of all the assets of the said Antoine Debattista given by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Inquiry by a decree dated 16th August, 2001, and published in the Government Gazette on the 24th August, 2001.
Dr John Seychell Navarro
Dip. Hlth Science, Dip Mgmt Stud., Dip. Not. Pub., LL.B., LL,D
Assistant Registrar
Criminal Courts and Criminal Tribunals (Malta)
Notice 1572
1572By means of a decree given, on the 7th September 2013, by the Civil Court ( Family Section) in the records of the Letter 768/13 CS, in the names Marlene Axiaq Cauchi (ID 217676M) vs Noel Cesareo (ID 14471M) the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent, in terms of Article 187(3) of Chapter 12.
By means of an Application, filed, in the Civil Court (Family Section) in the names Marlene Axiaq Cauchi (ID 217676M) vs Noel Cesareo (ID 14471M) on the 26th June 2013, the applicant Marlene Axiaq Cauchi, respectfully pleaded;
That the parties are the parents of the minor ...omissis... who today is three (3) years old.
That since ...omissis... was born the parties did not continue to live together.
...............omissis.....
That for various reasons brought in the application the applicant humbly asks this Honourable Court so that;
1.It orders the respondent to pass the adequate maintenance for the minor ...omissis... every four weeks.
2. Orders that the sameadequate maintenance be withdrawn directly from his wages and be sent in a bank accountindicated to him by the applicant.
3. Orders that the same adequate maintenance be increased every year according to the cost of Living Index.
4. Orders the respondent to pay the amount of (€700) arrears in anadditional monthly amount till all the amount is deductedat a ratewhich this Honourable Court deems fit;
5. Orders that the respondent pays 50% of the health and education expenses of the minor within a weekfrom when she shall pass the relative receipts.
6. Orders that the respondent is to gather the minor from school three times a week and return the minor at five in the afternoon.
7. Orders that the respondentto hold the minor for sleepover once a week during the weekend.
8. Orders that on the days when the minor is not at schoolthe respondent holds the minor with him during the time when the applicant is at workor alternatively that he paysso that the minor be sent to a child care centre at the same time.
With costs, against the respondent.
Service: 26, Villa Eugene, Triq Mannarino, Birkirkara.
Adv. Frank Portelli,LL.D.
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1573
1573By decree given by the CIVIL COURT, FIRST HALL on 23rd September, 2013, on the application of MAMO FRANCIS ET, Tuesday, 12th November, 2013 at eleven o’clock (11:00 a.m.), has been fixed for the SALE BY AUCTION, to be held in THE FIRST FLOOR OF THESE COURTS OF JUSTICE of the following property.
Semi detached villa number forty four (44) named Villa Fusina and underlying basement garage in Triq Ġorg Zammit, Attard, free and unencumbered valued four hundred and fifty thousand euro (€450,000).
The said tenement is the property of FALZON PIERRE (I.D. 535060M) u FALZON HELEN (I.D. 506761M).
N.B. The said tenement will be sold as described in the acts of the file number 70/12.
Marvic Farrugia
For the Registrar of Civil Court and Tribunals
Notice 1574
1574By means of a decree given, on the 8th August, 2013, by the Court of Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction) in the records of the Appeal Application , in the names Profs. Albert Fenech vs Michel Vat et, Notice number 209/2011, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondents, in terms of Article 187(3) of Chapter 12.
By means of an Application, filed, in the Court of Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction) Notice Number 209/2011, Profs. Albert Fenech vs Michel Vat and Carla Winters, on the 31st July, 2013, the applicant Professor Albert Fenech respectfully pleaded;
The facts that gave rise to this dispute are the following;
1.That the appellant granted on lease the respondents the premisesapartment number 13, The Elms, Triq George Borg Olivier, Sliema, towards the rent of €2,300 monthly.
2. That in the said agreement it was also agreed that the lessees are to pay a deposit of €2,300 which had to be returned at the termination of the lease.
3. That the lessees abandoned the appartment in question and did not pay the last 4 payments of rent due.
4. That despite of various callings the respondents still remain in default and thus the appellant by means of the present Notice filed before the Court of Magistrates (Malta) asked this Honourable Court, to order the respondents to pay the sum of €9,200.
5. That in virtue of his reply the respondent Michel Vat pleaded that (i) the proceedings had to be heard in the English language, ii) That he was not the right defendant, iii) That the plaintiff’s claim is unfounded in fact and at law and iv) the amount demanded was exagerated and not all due.
6.That the respondent Carla Winters in her reply pleaded that i) the procedures had to be heard in the English language, ii) that the plaintiff’s demand is unfounded in fact and at law and iii) that the amount demanded was exagerated and not all due.
That in virtue of a judgement given by the Honourable First Court, of the 11th July, 2013, the Court, decided the cause by no longer taking any cognizance of the first plea of the defendants, it rejected the second plea of the defendant Michel Vat, it rejected the third plea of the defendant Michel Vatand the second plea of the defendant Carla Winters and upheld the fourth plea of the defendant Michel Vat and the second plea of the defendant Carla Winters and thus upheld that the amount demanded by the applicants was exagerated and consequently ordered the respondents to pay the sum of €4,600 representing arrears of rent.
That the applicant felt aggrieved by the decision of the Honourable First Courtand is thusfiling this appeal therefrom. That the grievance of the applicant is clear and manifest and consists in the following;
1.Primarily the fact that the Honourable Court of First Instance, failed to consider in the first place that the roof room was never leased to the respondents.
2. That the lack of payment of rent for the period demanded in the Notice or rather for the four month period due to the appellant since they continuedto use the premises in question.
3. That besides the deposit paid on the private writing of the 17th June, 2009, should have never been deducted from the sum due.
That thus the grievances of the applicant consist in the following:
1.That the applicant feels agrievedwith the fact that the Honourable Court of First Instance, failed to consider that effectively the appellantcould have made unlimited use of the room on the roof and in no waydid he agree with the lessee that the said room could be used only as a store.
2. That it clearly emergesfrom the proof produced that effectively the room in question never formed part of the lease in question.
3. That once the applicantwas not precludedby the lease agreement to reside in the room in question he had unlimited use of the said room.
4. That nowhere from the proof does it emerge in any manner or otherwise nor verballyand it was not stipulatedin the lease agreement that the appellant could have used the room in question to store his personal objects.
5...............omissis.............
6. That apart from this the applicant feels agrieved with the fact that the Honourable Court of First Instance failed to consider that once the respondents were making use of the premises after the last month of the leaseand once the lease in question had to be paid in advance, the Honourable Court of First Instance, was with all respect, incorrect, when it deducted from the sum demanded the rent for the last month.
7. ...........omissis................
8..............omissis...............
9. That the applicant feels aggrieved also with the fact that the Honourable Court of First Instance, failed to consider that the deposit paid on the private writing was not paidto make good for any arrears of rent, but was paidto make good for any damages which could have been causedas well as payments of water and electrictybills pending and this as appears from the same lease agrement.
10. That effectively it emerges clearly from the proof producedthat there are still water and electricty bills pending which were never paid by the defendants today respondents and in no way should the Honourable First Court, automatically set off the amount paid as a deposit with the amount due by the defendants.
11......................omissis..................
12.......................omisis....................
13. That thus the grievance of the applicant consists in the fact that the Honourable Court of First Instance, in virtue of its decision ordered the set-off of the deposit paid without considering that the respondents are debtors of the applicant, not only for the sum demanded in the Notice, but also for the further sumwhich was being secured by the deposit paid.
14.That effectivelythe appellanthad not demanded the payment of the water and electricty arrears in the Notice becsuse was his rights were being secured by means of the deposit paid.
15.That effectively the decision of the Honourable Court of First Instance, constrains the appellant, to file new procedures so that all the amount duefor the arrears of water and electricity be paid once despite that the deposit in questionhad to set offthe amount due for water and electrictyand not rent in terms of the judgement given by the Honourable Court of First Instance, the appellantdid not pay the said bills, since the deposit was set off with the amount due for rent.
Thus the applicant whilst making reference to all the proof produced in the First Instance and all therecords of the cause and whilst reserving to bring forward all the proof permitted by law, is asking this Honourable Court, to reform the judgement of the 11th July, 2013, in the names premised given by the Honourable Court of Magistrates (Malta) as demanded in this Appeal Application.
With costs of both instances as well as those of the Warrant of Seizure and the Garnishee Order, with interest till the date of effective payment.
In virtue of this publication the respondents are being notified and this as authorised by the decree of the 9th August 2013, by the Courtabove mentioned, thatby means ofa Note of the 2nd August 2013, the appellant Professor Albert Fenech (ID 817451M) exhibited in the records of the Notice Number 209/2011,a translation in the English language of the Appeal Application in the names above indicated which was presented in the Court of Appeal, on the 31st July 2013 and which is being notified to the respondents in virtue of this publication.
Appellant: Oakhill Apartments, 43, Scicluna Street, St. Julians.
Respondents: Flat 9, 239, Triq it-Torri, Sliema.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD.
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1575
1575NOTICE REGISTRY OF THE CIVIL COURT (FAMILY SECTION)
Whereas the plaintiff Nikola Pejovic (Serbian Passport No. 007438808) filed an application under oath (No. 187/13RGM) demanding CORRECTIONS in the ACT OF BIRTH of the minor child ...omissis... number 4272/2012 in the Public Registry.
Whosoever may have an interest therein, and wishes to oppose that demand, is hereby called upon to do so, by means of a note to be filed in the Registry of these Courts, within fifteen days from the day of the publication of this present notice in the Government Gazette.
Those who, within the aforesaid time, shall have filed such note, shall be notified by the service of a copy of the said application under oath, of the day which will be appointed for the hearing of the case.
By order of the Court,
Cora Azzopardi
For Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1576
1576By means of a decree given by the First Hall Civil Court, on the 10th September, 2013, in the records of the Warrant of Prohibitory Injunction Number 1756/2011 GC, in the names J&C Contracts Limited (C 13360) vs Maria Camilleri, Joseph Camilleri, Sylvana Gauci and Charmaine Camilleri, the following publicatioon was ordered for the purpose of service of the company J&C Contracts Ltd, in terms of Article 187(3) et. of Chapter 12.
By means ofan Application, filed, in the First Hall Civil Court, in the records of the Warrant of Prohibitory Injunction Number1756/2011 GC, in the names J&C Contracts Limited (C 13360) vs Maria Camilleri, Joseph Camilleri, Sylvana Gauci and Charmaine Camilleri, on the 5th August, 2013,theapplicant Maria Camilleriet respectfully pleaded;
That following Warrant of Prohibitory Injunction Number 1756/2011 GC, the properties of the applicants were affected by this Warrant.
That it clearly appearsfrom the lawsuit which was filed that the applicant ia asking for the rescissionof two contracts which refer to two garages which on the contracttheir value was of one hundred sixteen thousand Euros (€116,000) eachthat is the amount being demand by the applicant is of two hundred thousand three hundresd twenty nine Euros and some further damages.
That it is unjustthat the applicants have all their property affected by this Warrant when the value of the properties well exceeds the amount demanded.
That on the basis of Article 836 sub paragraph (C) of the Civil Code of the Laws of Malta it should result that only one of the properties of Maria Camilleriis of the value of 350,000 euros according to the attached estimation.
That there is a property of the son Joseph Camilleri which is Kennedy House, Oratory Street, Għarghur, which is affected by this warrant and it is necessary to sell it becacuse he has financial obligationsand it is necessary to be sold;
Thus the applicants pray that on the basis of the limited demand of the applicant on the basis of the estimation hereby attachedwhich satisfies the demands and on the basis of the Law itself humbly asks that this property in Għargħur be released from the Warrant of Prohibitory Injunction in order disposed off.
Notify: J&C Contracts Limited (C 13360)
Adv. Frank Portelli, LL.D.
For theRegistrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals.
Notice 1577
1577By means of a decree given, by the Court of Appeal, on the 14th August 2013, in the records of the Appeal Application, in the names Mario Darmanin vs Annalise Cassar, application number 117/09 AL, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of Mario Darmanin, in terms of Article 187(3) of Chapter 12.
By means of an Appeal Application, filed, in the Court of Appeal, in the cause, Application Number 117/09 AL, Mario Darmanin I.D. 363461(M) vs Annalise Cassar I.D. 455183(M) on the 28th June 2013, the applicant Annalise Cassar I.D. 455183(M) respectfully pleaded;
1.That by means ofa sworn application, filed, by the respondent Mario Darmanin, premised the following:
1. Thatthe applicanthad a relationship with the respondent Annalise Cassar and from this relationship the minor Matteo Cassar was born.
2. That the respondent Annalise Cassar, without the knowledge of the applicant, registered the parties’ child as ‘father unknown’.
3. That despite of the factthat he succededin being recognised as the father of the minor Matteo, the applicant feelsthat he is not being given adequate access to his son and that he is not being given the opportunity of a being a part of his son’s life.
4. That it has to be stated that by means of decree number 2069/2008 JA dated twenty eight (28) of November 2008, the applicant was given access of four (4) hours weekly, pendente lite and that this decree is being observed by the respondent.
5. That since the minor was born the applicant paid maintenance of €250 monthly strictly.
6. That the applicant was brought up and lived in the United States of America for thirty eight years and came to live in Malta so that he be close to his son.
7. That apart from this his hours of work are very flexible and he has every opportunityto spend a lot of time with his son.
8...........omissis...........
9. That the applicant made every attempt imaginable in order to reach a consensual agreement between the parties, however the respondentcontinued to be obstinateand brought up every banal excseto deprive the applicant from his son.
Asked the defendant to state why this Court should not;
1.Order that the care and legal custody of the minor be entrusted to the parties jointly;
2. Order that the applicant should be involved in all the decisions regarding the health and education of the said minor.
3. Authorisethat the father shall have access to all the documents relating to the health and education of the minor.
4. Order that the applicant be informed immedately if the minor is hospitalised or receives urgent medical care.
5. Orders that the passaport of the minor be heldby that party that shall have the care and custody of the minor.
6. Order that the applicant shall have access as demanded in this application.
7................omissis..............
8.................omissis.................
9..................omissis...............
10.................omissis..............
11. Order that in the eventthat the minor is sick and the father cannot exercise access as decreed, by this Court, the applicant shall have the right of access on another day in the same week.
12. Order that in caseone of the parties dies whilst their son is still a minor , the care and custody of the minor should be automatically entrusted to the surviving spouse.
13. Order thatin view that the boy is still young none of the parties should expose himto the presence of third parties of the opposite sex which are not related with the respective parent, unless the parties are married.
With costs, against the respondent, from now summoned so that a reference to her evidence is made.
2.In reply to thesedemands, the respondent today appellant brought forwardher counter claim in virtue of which she pleaded;
1. That the partieshad a relationshipfrom which Matteo Cassar Darmanin was born on the 29th August 2007.
2. That the interpellant was 23 years and the applicant who was her employer’s brother was already 46 years.
3. That the applicant had left Maltawhen she was less than three months pregnant and returned in December 2007 namely 4 months after the birth of the son.
4. That during the proceedings he threatened her that he was going to take the son for ever.
5. That the applicant was already married and annulled his marriage recently.
6. That five months had passed before he startedpaying maintenance for the minorand despite that the boyhad been hospitalised twice,he still did not contribute anything as shall resulted during the pleadings.
7.That the interpellant has taken care of the boy since his birth and the access of the applicant is regulatedby a Decree of the competent Court.
8...............omissis..............
9...............omissis..............
10. That the interpellant wishes to be entrusted with the care and custody of the minor son and that the accessand maintenance of the son be regulated.
Pleas of the respondent today appellant:
1.That in the first place the interpellant points out that she should not be considered responsible for any expenses since the exagerated number of demands brought foward in this cause could have been reduced.
2. That furthermore the parties had reached an agreement even on the accessduring the mediation and eventually the access was regulated by a decree of the competent Court.
3. That as regards the merit the first demand of the plaintiff should be rejected since the care andcustody of the minor should be entrusted exculsively to the interpellant.
4. The second demand ofthe plaintiff should be rejected since the interpellant always took care of the minor.
5...............omissis.............
6................omissis..............
7. That she should hold the passport since the applicant has relativesand immovableproperty abroad as well as close connections with America and thus the entrusting of the passport to him can be taken as an opportunity to take the minor outside Malta permanently.
8...........omissis.................
9............omissis.................
10. That the twelfth demand is superflous and untimely as results during the pleadings and subsequently it should be in the best interst of the minor.
11..............omissis..............
12. That in the best interest of the minor fix the adequate maintenance for the same minor and order the applicant to pay the maintenance so established.
13. Saving further pleas and saving her Counter Claim filed together with the present.
14. With costs, against the applicant summoned so that a reference to his evidence be made.
3. Judgement of the Court of First Instance.
By means of ajudgement decided on the thirteenth (13) of June 2013, by the Civil Court ( Family Section) in the names Matteo Darmanin vs Annalise Cassar, No 117/09 decided by;
1 By upholding the firstplea and entrust the care and custody of the minor Mario Darmanin to the two parties jointly and the minor is to live with the respondent his mother;
2. Uphold the second demand;
3. Uphold the third demand;
4. Uphold the fourth demand;
5. Order that the passport of the minor be witheld by the respondent.
6. Order that the access in favour of the minor by the applicant should be in the following manner:
..................omissis..........
7. Uphold the seventh demand.
8. Uphold the eight demand.
9. Uphold the ninth demand.
10. Reject the tenth demand.
11. Reject the eleventh demand.
12. Abstain from taking cognizance of this demand ,since these are not the suitable procedures so that such demand be decided and upheld.
13. Rejected the thirteenth demand since the parties are not married.
With costs, against the respondent.
The facts in briefwhich brought about this cause are the following:
1. That the parties arethe parents of their minor son Matteo.
.............omissis.........
4. Grievances of the appellant.
The appellant felt aggrieved by this judgement and thus by means of the present application is humbly filing an appeal before this Honourable Court;
That the grievances suffered by the appellant are clear and manifest and consist in the following:
1.That the appellant felt aggrieved by the decision appealed as regard the head of expenses in view of the exagerated number of claimswhich could have been reducedand which were not all upheld and thus is filing an appeal from the same Head.
2.That the grievance suffered by the interpellantis clear and manifest because the interpellant appellant never resorted to Court out of pike between the parties to the detriment of her son Matteo, but rather contrary to this she alwayscooperated to the benefit of their son Matteo.
3.That the appellantis not to blame for the fact that the respondent Mario Darmanin, instituted a case with an exagerated number of claimsin her regard in order to obtainthe joint careand custody of the minor Matteo.
4. That with all respect towards the Honourable Court the appellant declares that her fearwas not that she be misinterpreted but fear which arose because there were valid reasons.
5.That thus we find contrary to that alleged by the applicant ‘ it was the appellant herself who approached the applicant in order that the access take place’.
6.That despite of this the appellant feels that she was unjustly penalised by the Honourable Court, when it considered that despite of her fear she never filed further procedures to withold the respondent from going abroad with the minor.
7. That when the Honourable Court upheld the demands of the respondent two (2) three (3) and four (4) in the first place the appellant points out that the parties had reached agreementon the access during mediation and eventually the access was regulated by a decree of the competent Court.
8.In the considerationmade by the Honourable Court to reach its judgement in this regard it could note from the version of the appellants themselves during the proceedings namely’ The respondent states that despite all that the applicant did she has no intentionto deprive him of his son andadds also that she feels that she should inform Mario as regards the health and education of the boy’.
9. That the twelfth (12) and thirteenth (13) demands are superflous and untimelywhich not even the Court upheldand for which the appellant should not have suffered any expenses.
Thus the appellants whilst referring to the proof produced and whilst reserving from now the right to bring forwardall the proof admissible by law, respectfully prays that this Honourable Court, reforms the judgement appealed as demanded in this application.
Appellants: Annalise Cassar I.D. 455183(M) 150, Dar ir-Redentur, Triq il-Pellegrinaġġ tar-Roti, Żabbar.
Respondent: Mario Darmanin, 51/53, Sanctuary Street, Żabbar.
Adv. Frank Portelli,LLD.
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1578
1578by a decree of the 7th october, 2013 given by the first hall civil court, the court ordered that the extract hereunder mentioned be published for the purpose of service according to article 338(1) of the code of organization and civil procedure (chapter 12)
That by application and a Schedule of set-off filed contemporaneously by Focal Maritime Co Ltd on the 1st October, 2013, the approval of the said judicial acts is being demanded for the amount of €3,000 following judicial sale by auction 32/12 in the names Focal Maritime Co Ltd vs Top Hat Co Ltd, held under the Authority of the said Court on the 30th September, 2013.
According to Article 338 (2) of Chapter 12: Any person who may have an interest and the persons so served shall be allowed the time of twenty days to file an answer stating in detail the reasons for their opposition and the amounts in contestation; and where such opposition is based on a claim against the proceeds of sale an alleged cause of preference, they are to state the amount of such claim and the basis for the preference. Such persons shall with the answer file all relevant evidence to substantiate their opposition.
Marvic Farrugia
For The Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals