Mur Lura
Court Notices published in Govt. Gazette No. 19,188 of the 27th December 2013
01/01/2013
Notice 2039
2039By means of a decree of the 26th June, 2013 in the First Hall of the Civil Courtsin the records of the judicial letter number 1392/13 in the names Emmanuel Zammit vsNFR Ltd, ordered the following publication for the purpose of service of Article 187 (5) of Cap. 12.
By means of a judicial letter filed in the First Hall of the Civil Courts against NFR Ltd (C49560) of 11-13, Triq Gio dei Markezi Mallia Tabone, Mosta, on the 15th May, 2013 Emmanuel Zammit (ID 519660M), of Emmcar, 22, Triq is-Suq, Żejtun, solicits you so that within one week from the date of service of this letter you pay the sum of €17,631 which sum covers the balance from a greater amount due to works carried out by the interpellant on your request.
In default of payment within the time given, the interpellant will have no alternative but to proceed against you by all the means given to him by law, including the issuing of the opportune warrants.
This letter is being made and is need according to the dispositions of the Civil Code of Malta.
So much of your own guidance.
Take this as the last notice.
With costs.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 2040
2040By means of a decree given on the 28th October, 2013 by the Court of Appeal in the records of the Appeal Application, in the names Advocate Henri Mizzi nomine vs Flower Power ( Sales) Limited, Application number 953/04 JPG, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent company Flower Power (Sales) Ltd, in terms of Article 187 (3) et seq. of Cap. 12.
By means of an Application filed in the Court of Appeal, Application Number 953/04 JPG, Decided 04/04/2013, Advocate Henri Mizzi (Identity Card Number 143465M), on behalf and in representation of the absent Nicholas Sammut (IdentityCard Number 10937M), and by a Decree of the 10th July, 2008 Dr. Rachel Loporto Montebello took over the records of the causeinstead of Dr Henri Mizzi vs Flower Power ( Sales) Limited (C 13901), on the 24th June, 2013 the applicant Advocate Dr. Rachel Loporto Montebello nomine (Identity Card number 176576M) respectfully pleaded:
That by means of an original Application filed on the 6th December, 2004 before the Honourable First Hall Civil Court, the applicant today appellant asked for the reasons therein premised, that the same Honourable Court saving all the necessary declarations and provisions declare and decide that there are sufficiently grave reasons for the dissolution and consequentwinding upof the respondent company and this in terms of Article 214 (2) (b) (iii)of Chapter 386 of the Laws of Malta.
That by means of a Reply filed by the respondent company on the 30th December, 2004 it was pleaded in detail why the applicant’s demands are to be rejected with costs.
That by means of an application filed by him on the 29th March, 2011 before the Honourable First Hall Civil Court, in the records of the original Application in the names above premised the expert accountant appointedby the same Honourable Court, Michael Spiteri Bailey asked for the reasons therein premised that in terms of the provisions of Article 667 (4) and Tariff G Paragraph (4) of Chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta he be authorised to be paid an extra fee for his report presented and sworn on the 30th June, 2010.
That in virtue of a reply filed by her in reply to the application of the 29th March, 2011 the applicant submitted:
(1) That the application of the expert accountantwas clearly made in terms of the provisions of paragraph 4 of Tariff G of Chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta.
……omissis……
(2) Now in this case, it results that whilst the fee originally demanded by the expert accountant was taxed in the amount of (€15,000) this fee as taxed was reduced to the amount stipulated in paragraph 1 of Tariff G and namely €2,329.37 by means of a Decree given by this Honourable Court on the 11th January 2011.
(3) That it is completely contradictory that in his Application the expert accountant invoked the provisions of paragraph 4 of Tariff G and at the same time he demands that there be applied the provisions of Article 667 (4) when the same expert accountantdid not follow the procedure contemplated in Article 667 (4) in order to ask for a new taxationand when he is contesting the amount established as renumeration by a Court Decree and not by means of a tax made according to the provisions of Article 666 of Chapter 12.
(4) That infact it is also pointed out without prejudice to the premised that not only the expert accountantwas not of the opinion that he should not contest the fee established by the Decreeof the 11th January, 2011 within the opportune time but much before the filing of his application he had already been paid by the applicant his fee in the sum of €2,329.37.
……omissis……
(5) That without prejudice to the premised, it is pointed out that the provisions of paragraph 4 of Tariff G provide that a fee taxed in favour of the expert accountant for his Report in this case inthe sum of €2,329.37 should include the renumeration for the preparationof the report, bills, sittings, held by the expert and Court attendance, which are all items indicated in the list attached with the application of the same expert accountant.
(6) That without prejudice to the premised, it is also submittedthat the report for which the expert accountant is pretending additional payment in terms of the provisions of paragraph 4 of Tariff Gwas intended to be a report ad interim as results from the minutes of the 30th June 2010.
……omissis……
That by means of a Decree given on the 4th April, 2013, the Honourable Court of First Instance after having seen the application of the Expert accountant of the 29th March, 2011 and the subsequent acts and after the considerations there in made it provided inter aliaby confirming the Tax in the amount of (€17,700) according to Tariff G (4) of Chapter 12, and orderedthe parties to pay the Expert accountant Michael Spiteri Bailey, the balance due and namely the sum of (€15,370.63).
That the applicant today appellant felt aggrieved with the said Decree and by means of an application filed by her before the Honourable First Hall Civil Court, on the 11th April, 2013 the applicant asked inter alia for the revocation of the decree of the 4th April, 2013 and in default be that she given permission to appeal from this Decree.
That by means of a Decree given on the 18th June, 2013 the Court of First Instanceafter it declared that the tax established by its Decree of the 4th April, 2013 referred to the final report of the Expert Accountant and not to his ad interim report and whilst it rejected the demand for the revocationof the decree of the 4th April, 2013it upheld the demand of the applicant to file an appeal so that the dispute be brought before the Court of Appealbefore a definitive judgement is given and fixed the term of six days so that this appeal is filed.
That the applicant is thus filing this humble appeal of heirs from the decree of the 4th April, 2013 as authorised.
That the facts which gave rise to this case are in brief the following:
(i) That the applicant filed the original Application which gave rise to these procedures, whereby inter alia the dissolution of the company Flower Power (Sales) Limited was demanded which procedures are still pending before the Honourable First Hall Civil Court.
(ii) That on the 9th December, 2009 the Honourable First Hall Civil Court following the demand of the applicant appointed MichaelSpiteri Bailey as expert accountant with the appointment to decide on the demands of the applicant in the original Application.
(iii) That on the 30th June, 2010 the same Expert Accountant filedand swore the preliminary Report and subsequently a tax was issuedwhich established his fee in the amount of (€17,700).
(iv) That subsequently by means of a Decree given on the 11th January, 2011 following the Note of Appeal presented by the applicant in terms of Article 667 of Chapter 12, the Honourable First Court reduced the taxed fee of the Expert Accountant and taxed his fee for the preliminary report in the sum of (€2,329.37).
(v) That effectively the applicant paid the Expert Accountant the sum so determined of €2,329.37 in settlement of the fees due to the expert accountant regarding his preliminary report.
(vi) That subsequently to this payment and in settlement of his rights the Expert Acountant filed his application on the 29th March, 2011 so that he be given an extra fee on his interim report.
(vii)……omissis……
(viii)……omissis……
(ix) That in virtue of its Decree of the 4th April, 2013 the Honourable First Court confirmed the tax in the amount of €17,700 due to the Expert Accountant andordered the payment of the balance in the sum of €15,370.63 for his final report.
That the grievance is clear and manifest and consists in the following:
(1) That in the first place it is not clear how the Honourable First Court in its decree of the 18th June, 2013 made a clarification in the sense that its preceeding Decree of the 14th April, 2013 refers to the final report of the Expert Accountant and not the report ad interim.
……omissis……
(2) That in any case if the Decree of the 4th April, 2013 can truly be considered as having taxed the fee of the Expert Accountant for his final reportandif the amount of €17,700is thus to be consideredas the fee taxed in favourof the same Expert accountant for his final report (out of which he has already been paid the sum of €2,329.37 on account), the following observations are to be made by way of grievances.
According to the terms of the application of the 29th March, 2011 the Honourable Court of First Instance had to determine whether the Expert Accountantshould be given an extra fee besides the fee taxed to him in the sum of €2,329.37 for his first report.Instead the Court, confirmed the fee in the amount of €17,700 according to Tariff G, Paragraph 4 Chapter 12 and this for his final report.
……omissis……
That thus the Honourable Court of First Instancecouldhave never confirmed this Tax when this had already been reduced to the sum of Euro 2,239.37.
That furthermore and this without prejudice to the premised if the amount taxed by the Honourable First Court by way of fee due to the Expert Accountant (€17,700) for his final reportthiswas also reached by adopting the wrong procedure.
………omissis……
That if according to the Honourable Court of First Instance, the tax which was confirmedin the amount of €17,700 refers only to the fee due for the final report ofthe expert Accountant, and not his ad interim report then the following observations have to be made:
(i) The sum of €2,329.37 which the Expert Accountant was undoubtedly and uncontestedly paidwith reference to the fee due for his preliminary report.
(ii) That consequently when the Honourable Court of First Instance ordered in its Decree of the 4th April, 2013 that he be paid the balance due to the Expert Accountant in the sum of €15,370.63 following the payment on account which was made in the amount of €2,329.37 one understands that the payment on account which was made was also due for the final report.
(iii)……omissis……
(iv) That furthermoreand this without prejudice to that aboveexposed there certainly do not exist any special circumstances in this caseand in the work carried out by the expert accountant in order to prepare out his report which justifythat he be given an extra fee in this case for his final report.
v)……omissis……
(vi) That apart from this, it results that the Expert Accountant is also expecting that the preparation of the report itself is to be considered as a special circumstancewhich justifies the granting of a fee in the global sum of €17,700.
vii)……omissis……
(viii) That the fact that the Honourable Court of First Instance confirmed the Fee which was issued for the preliminary report for the purpose of the final report means that the expert accountant was given the right to be paid twice for work which was carried outfor the purpose of his first report for which he was already been paid by applicant.
(ix) That in fact and without any prejudice to the premised it is also pointed out that as declared by the Expert accountant himself in his application of the 29th March, 2011 his final report shall probably includethe conclusions of his ad interim report.
(x) That from all this premised, it appears that the Honourable Court of First Instance found a way so that by all meansthe expert accountant be giventhat feewhich he thinks that he should be paid as ifthe provisions of Tariff G do not apply in regard to this expert accountant.
(xi)……omissis……
(xii)That furthermoreand this without prejudice to the premised it is humbly submitted that in fact according to this Honourable Court the other experts appointed in this cause were paid thousands of Eurosis with all respect irrelevant as well as mistaken.
Thus in view of all that premised, whilst referring to theproof and all the recordingsof the proceedings and reservingto provide further proof and to make further submissions according to law, the appellants pray with respect that this Honourable Court cancels and revokes the decree given by the Honourable First Hall Civil Court, on the 4th April, 2013 in the names above premised and or give any provision it deems fit in the circumstances with costs.
Notify:Flower Power (Sales) Limited - The Nursery, Triq Durumblat, Ta’ Qali.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LL.D.
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 2041
2041By means of a decree given by the Court of Appeal on the 11th November, 2013 in the records of the Appeal Application, in the names Michael Attard Limited vs Albert Vella, application number 342/12 GC, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondents Albert Vella and Catherine Vella, in terms of Article 187 (3) et seq. of Cap. 12.
By means of an Appeal Application filed in the Court of Appeal, in the records of the Application number 342/12 GC, Michael Attard Limited (C 32362) vs Albert Vella (ID 200858M) Decided 19th July, 2013 the applicant Michael Attard Limited respectfully pleaded:
That by means of the applicationfiled by Catherine Vella, on the 13th March, 2012 in the records of the Judicial Sale Number 5/2012, in the names Michael Attard Limited vs Albert Vella, the same Catherine Vella asked the Honourable Court of First Instance so that it be declared that Albert Vella is solely responsiblefor the debt in the amountof €124,068.88towards Michael Attard Limited, that there be revoked the warrant of seizure of immovable property and namely the property which bears the address Prim Rose, Triq Mon Innocenz, Msida, in its entirety in terms of Article 281 of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta. In default, the applicantis askingthat there be ordered the suspensionof the judicial sale in terms of Article 326 et seq. of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Maltauntil the Sworn Application therein annexed is decreed and that there be orderedthat all the cars against which a warrant of seizure number 516/11 has been issuedbut which have still have not been seizedand on which cars Michael Attard Limited has a special privilegefor an amountwhich is still due..omissis.. furthermorethat it be orderedthat the same debt be set off by means of the paraphernal property of the respondent and never on the one half undivided part of the community of acquestswhich appertains to the applicantincluding naturally one half of the matrimonial home...omissis.. and thus if there remains any debt with the applicant company, after the cars have been sold as abovementioned, there be sold onlyone half undivided share of the property in question which belongs to the respondent, whilst the other undivided halfremains the exclusive property of the applicant. With all costs against the respondent.
That against these demands, the company Michael Attard Limited replied by means of the opportune reply and to avoid repetition refers to its reply as results from the records.
...omissis...
That together with the application filed by Catherine Vella, on the 13th March, 2012 in the records of the Judicial Sale Number 5/2012, in the names Michael Attard Limited vs Albert Vella, the same Catherine Vella filed a cause in the names Catherine Vella vs Albert Vella, and by decree of the 30th March, 2012 the company Michael Attard Limited was authorised to intervene in the cause (Sworn Application Number 272/2012 AE), and this as declared by Catherine Vellain her application merit of this appeal.
That in the cause Catherine Vella vs Albert Vella and by decree of the 30th March, 2012 the company Michael Attard Limited was authorised to intervene in the cause (Sworn Application Number 272/2012 AE), Catherine Vella brought forward the said demands as those brought forward in the application merit of this appeal.
……omissis……
That by means of a judgement in the cause Catherine Vella vs Albert Vella, and by a decree of the 30th March, 2012 the company Michael Attard Limited was authorised to intervene in the cause (Sworn Application Number 272/2012 AE)...omissis...the Honourable First Hall Civil Court passed on to reject the demands of Catherine Vella and decided the cause by declaring ‘For these motives the Court rejects the cause by rejecting theapplicant’s demands by clarifyingthat the applicantis not bound to guarantee the debt with her paraphernal property’. The applicant is to bear her costs.
That nothwithstandingthe same Catherine Vella did not inform the Honourable First Court which presided the present proceduresthat the merit of her complaints had already been decided in the cause filed by herand left the Honourable Court of First Instance to proceed with its decisionin the present procedures,and which decision is completely in conflict with the judgement of the Honourable First Hall Civil Court, dated 30th May, 2013 which decided the same demands contained in the application of these procedures.
That infact the Honourable First Court in the present procedures by means of a decision dated 19th July, 2013 decided the following, ‘For these motives decides by upholding the second and third demand of the applicants and consequently declares that the applicant’s husband and namely Albert Vella is solely responsible for the debt in the amount of €124,068.88 towards the company Michael Attard Limited.....omissis... All the costs are to be paid in half between the applicant and the applicant Michael Attard Limited’.
That the facts relevant to the present case are the following:
……omissis……
That the appellant company felt aggrieved by the decision of the Honourable Court of First Instance of the 19th July, 2013 and is thus filing this humble appeal.
That the grievances of the company are clear and manifest, and consist in the following:
1. Nullity and irregularity of the procedures and the decision appealed.
That it is stated in the first place that the application filedby Catherine Vella merit of this appeal in the records of the Judicial Sale Number 5/2012, in the names Michael Attard vs Albert Vella, was so filed with the purpose that the same judicial sale be suspended until the merit ofthese complaints of the same Catherine Vella, be decided and dealt with as should be in a cause ad hoc.
That notwithstanding the same Catherine Vella brought forward demands in her original application which were not suitable in the procedures used so much so that the same demands were dealt with in the cause filed by her anddecided on the 30th May, 2013 in the names Catherine Vella and Albert Vella and by a decree of the 30th March, 2012 the company Michael Attard Limited was authorised to intervene in the cause (Sworn Application Number 272/2012 AE).
That it is not suitable and procedurally irregular that the execution of an executive title be attacked by means of the procedure merit of the present appeal.
……omissis……
But the Honourable First Court passed on to decide all the demands brought by Catherine Vella, nothwithstandingthat it was not the right procedure within which these demands should have been examined.
That furthermore the Honourable First Court decided on demands which were already decided by the same Court differently presided and which decision was res judicata, the Honourable Court of First Instance was well awarethat there was a pending lawsuit regarding the same merit and with the same demands.
……omissis……
That furthermore the Honourable Court of First Instance passed on to decide the merit when the parties had agreed that a decree should be given regarding the suspension of these procedures till the cause on the merit is decided but for some reason the Honourable Court of First Instance passed on to decide on all the demands.
……omissis……
That the only thing which this Honourable Court had to decide was whether it was going to stay the proceedings till the cause is decided or not, but for some reasonit passed on to decide the cause.
That if ever and in order to ensure that the appellant company be given a fair hearing, the records should be sent back to the Court ofFirst Instance and the appellant company be given an opportunity to bring forward its proof and subsequently a decision be given.
……omissis……
That humbly it is submitted that the actual situation does not do honour to the judicial system and this since you have two procedures with identical parties, with identical demands and identical merit which are decided contrary to each other, within a few months of each other.
That it is also pointed out that the decision appealed is null and that it completely failed to decide on matters raised by the appellant company in its reply.
That this grievance is based on Article 789 (i) (c) and this since the decision appealed does not conform with the provisions of Article 218 of Cap. 12.
That from a superficial reading of the decision of the judgement appealed it results that the Honourable Court of First Instance completelyignoredthe matter raised by the appellant company in its reply...omissis... and which does not conform with the applicable provisions and consequently null in terms of Law.
2.Application and wrong Interpretation of the Law.
That the Honourable First Court rests its conclusion by practically relying solely on the Article 1324 of Cap. 16 of the Laws of Malta.
……omissis……
That the teaching of the Honourable First Hall Civil Court in the cause between the same parties regarding the same merit and as regards the same demands made an in depth study of the legal considerations which relate to the present dispute and in order to avoid repetition reference is being madeto the same judgement decided on the 30th May, 2013 in the names Catherine Vella vs Albert Vella, and by a decree of the 30th March, 2012 the company Michael Attard Limited was authorised to intervene in the cause (Sworn Application Number 272/2012 AE), which teaching and interpretation the appellant company is adopting for the purposes of this grievance.
……omissis……
That for some reason the Honourable First Court states that by the business deed made by Albert Vella, it is to be considered that real rightswere acquired by Michael Attard Limited on the matrimonial home. That thus according to the Honourable Court, once the signing of the bills of exchange create real rights on the matrimonial home these are to be considered as acts of an extraordinary nature with the consequencethat they had to be signed by the wife in order to be held valid.
That with the due respect even from this aspect the interpretation of the Honourable First Court is completely wrong.
That the credit declared by means of the judgement in the names Michael Attard Limited vs Albert Vella (1140/11 JZM) decided on the 1st January, 2012 resulted from bills of exchange signed and accepted by the same Albert Vella, and according to the constant teaching of our Courts, the drawing of bills of exchange should not be considered as an act ofextraordinary administration.
……omissis……
That from the jurisprudence just cited it is most evident that the interpretation given by the Honourable First Court and the application of the Law to the matter of bills of exchange is completely wrong.
……omissis……
That the conclusion conforming with our jurisprudence is that the bills of exchange signed by Albert Vella are such to bind the community of acquests with the consequence that the appellant company has the right to execute its executive title on the property of the community acquests, including the matrimonial home.
That also where the Honourable First Court states that the respondent could not attack the judgement in the names Michael Attard Limited vs Albert Vella (1140/11 JZM) decided on the 1st January, 2012 is also erroneous.
The Honourable First Court continues to state that the warrant of Seizure based on this judgement cannot be upheld in her regard, since she was not a party to the cause. With due respect once again this interpretation is completely wrong. The execution of the credit of the appellant company is being made on property of the community of acquests and this as explained such credit burdens the same community.
……omissis……
That thus at the stage of these procedures the relative Articles for the judicial sale and namely Articles 312 (3) to 357 of Cap. 12 which apply and not those invoked by the respondent.
……omissis……
That in any case the respondent did not bring forward any valid reason so that the warrant of immovable property in question be cancelled.
That notwithstanding the Honourable First Court avoided this fact and passed on to order the warrant of seizure be revoked in regard to the respondent.
3. Conclusion.
That for all the reasons above premised it is the humble submission of the appellant company that the decision appealed of the 19th July, 2013 merits to be revoked and the demands of the appellants be rejected.
Thus, the appellant company, whilst referring to all the records of this cause and whilst from now reserving to bring forward that proof and further submissions permitted by Law, prays with respect that this Honourable Court upholds the appeal and revoke, annull and cancel the appealed decision given by the Honourable First Court, on the 19th July, 2013 in the names Michael Attard Limited (C 32362) vs Albert Vella (ID 200858M), and consequently reject the demands of the respondent Catherine Vella.
With costs of these procedures and those before the Honourable First Court against the respondent Catherine Vella.
Appellant Company: National Attard, Blata l-Bajda.
Notify: Catherine Vella, 3, Welcome Court, Barnaba Street, Qawra.
Notify: Albert Vella, Primrose, Triq Mons. Innocenz Zammit, Msida.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LL.D.
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 2042
2042It is hereby notified that the Court of Crimial Appeal has on the 6th December, 2013 delivered a judgement in the case: The Police (Inspector Angelo Gafà) vs Mario Emanuel Camilleri, 41 years old, son of Joseph and Maria née Camilleri, born in New York, United States of America, and residing at ‘Cynthia’, Ta’ Marziena Street, Munxar, Gozo, and holder of identity card number 29190M, whereby Mario Emanuel Camilleri was found guilty and being a Public Officer, in terms of Article 190 of Cap. 9 of the Laws of Malta was condemned to a perpetual general interdiction.
Dr Mary DeBono Borg
Registrar