Go Back
Court Notices published in Govt. Gazette No. 19,186 of the 20th December 2013
01/01/2013
Notice 2004
2004By means of a decree given by the CivilCourt First Hall, on the 2nd December, 2013in the records of the Sworn Application in the names Bank of Valletta plc vs Raymond Scerri,Application number 832/13 FS, the following publication was orderedfor the purpose of the respondent Raymond Scerri in terms of Article 187 (3) et seq.of Cap. 12.
By means of an application filed in the First Hall Civil Court, in the names Bank of Valletta plc (C 2833) vs Raymond Scerri (ID 605960M) on the 30th August, 2013 the applicant Bank of Valletta plc (C 2833) asked the defendant to state why this Honourable Court should not:
Declare and decide that there occurred one or more of the events mentioned in the contracts and private writings mentioned in the application, and condemn Raymond Scerri to pay the plaintiff company the sum of one hundred thirty four thousand five hundred and twelve Euro and forty six cents (€134,512.46) balance of debt in the ‘Loan , Credit and Overdraft Accounts’ of Raymond Scerri, with the Bank of Valletta plc together with further interest from the 1st August, 2013 till the date of effective payment.
With costs against the defendant who is summoned so that a reference to his evidence be made.
Applicant company:Bank of Valletta plc (C 2833), 1/5, Misraħ San Ġorġ, Valletta VLT 1190.
Defendant: Raymond Scerri, Dajenu, Flat 1, Triq Mikiel Calleja, Ħal Tarxien.
The Sworn Application in the names Bank of Valletta plc vs Raymond Scerri, application number 832/13 FS, has been put off to the 17th February, 2014 at 9.15 a.m.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LL.D.
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 2005
2005By means of a decree of the 4th November, 2013 of the First Hall of the Civil Courtsin the records of the judicial letter number 2945/13 in the names Alexander Fenech et vsEast Gate Developments Ltd, ordered the following publication for the purpose of service in terms of Article 187 (5) of Cap. 12.
By means of a judicial letter filed in the First Hall of the Civil Courts on the 27th September, 2013 against East Gate Developments Ltd (C51140) of 24, St Margaret Street, Sliema, Alexander and Roberta, spouses Fenech, (ID 261477M and 68176M) of 86, Settembrina, Kananea Street, Ħ’Attard, whilst refering to the judicial letter numbered 2719/13in inverted names dated 10th October, 2013 and duly notified to them with reference to the promise of sale dated 10th October 2011 for the sale and purchase of two apartments marked respectively 79C and 80 and three car spaces in the building which will be known as “Westone Residence”, in Triq Sir Arturo Mercieca, Sliema, and in reply to the same, they bring to the attention of the applicant that the building is not ready and that amongst other things the external and internal apertures and the internal stairs are still to be done.
It also results that the certificate of completion which had to be issued by the architect responsible for the project in terms of Article 3 of the promise of sale has not been issued nor has the compliance certificate of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority.
In view of the above, the applicant spouses inform you that they are availing themselves of the option given to them in terms of Article 8 of the promise of sale mentioned above and are extending the time limit of the same promise of sale by another six (6) months from 10th October, 2013 such that the said promise of sale expires on 9th April, 2014.
So much for your own guidance and to regulate yourself.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 2006
2006It is being notified that by a decree dated 11th December, 2013 given by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Inquiry, (Magistrate Dr Miriam Hayman LL.D.) Compilation number 545/2013 in the case:The Police (Inspector Johann Fenech) versus Bashir Ali Mohamed Esgayeir, 33 years, unemployed, son of Ali and Kadisha Moktar, born in Libya, on the 14th August, 1980 and residing in Zawia, Libya, and at Sliema Hotel, Malta, and holder of Libyan passport bearing number 648419, and Nabil Farhat A. Kouja, 33 years, unemployed, son of Farhat and Hawa née Tanko, born in Tripoli, Libya, on the 10th May, 1980 and residing in Tripoli, Libya and at Sliema Hotel, Malta, and holder of Libyan passport bearing number 912044, ordered the attachment in the hands of third parties in general all monies and other movable property due or pertaining or belonging to Bashir Ali Mohamed Esgayeir and Nabil Farhat A. Kouja and prohibits the said accused from transferring or otherwise disposing of any movable or immovable property, and this according to Article 22A of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 101 of the Laws of Malta, and of Article 23A of the Criminal Code, Cap. 9 of the Laws of Malta.
The Court ordered that the said accused may continue to receive an amount which will not exceed thirteen thousand nine hundred and seventy six Euro and twenty four cents (€13,976.24) per year. Moreover, the Court ordered that it must be informed of each withdrawal that the accused will be making.
Dr Yvette Borg LL.D.
For the Registrar Criminal Courts and Criminal Tribunals
Notice 2007
2007By means of a decree of the 12th December, 2013 on an application of Andreana Camilleri and othersfiled on the 15th October, 2013 application number 1004/2013, this Honourable Court ordered the opening and thepublication of the secret will of Emmanuela Cutajar, widow of Carmelo Cutajar, daughter of the late Giuseppe Attard and Andreana née Pisani, born in Luqa and died in Attard on the 21st February, 2012 aged 73, holding identity card number 18427(M).
The opening andpublication of the will is going to be held on Tuesday, 14th January, 2014 at half past twelve in the afternoon (12.30 p.m.) at the Annex of the Law Courts in 34, Strait Street, Valletta,by deed of Notary Doctor Carmel Gafà.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Court and Tribunals
Notice 2008
2008By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal ofthe 30th September, 2013 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).
Mobisle Communications Limited(C 24655) of Fra Diego Street, Marsa MRS 1501, filed a Claim on the 27th June, 2013 whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Joseph Coppini (ID 456567M), of35, Triq il-Palma, Raħal Ġdid,to pay the plaintiff company the sum of€690.42 which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With costs and legal interests.
The case (Claim Number 391/13NHV) is put off on the 7th January, 2014 at 12.05 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 2009
2009By means of a decree given, of the 17th September, 2013 by the Court of Appeal, in the records of the Appeal Application, in the names Michael Angelo Fenechvs Joseph Gaffarena, Application number 244/11 MCH, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent Michael Angelo Fenech, in terms of Article 187(3) et. of Cap. 12.
By means of an Appeal Application filed in the Court of Appeal, Sworn Application 244/11 MCH, in the names Michael Angelo Fenech vs Joseph Gaffarena, the applicant Joseph Gaffarena ID 251451(M) respectfully pleaded:
That by means of a sworn application in the names above mentioned the respondent applicant asked the Honourable First Court:
(1) Whilst finding the respondent responsible for the damages caused to the applicant resulting from the facts declared in brief in the application consisting in: (i) legal expenses in connection with the letters and with an enforcement notice;(ii) transport expenses for the machinery,and (iii) damages for the occupation of the property of the interpellant, liquidate the damages mentioned and condemn the respondent to pay them with interests, till the date of effective payment.
(2) Order the respondentto collect the machinery in question at his expense, and in default of this within a short and peremptory period fixed by this Court, authorise the applicant to remove or/and himself destroythe same vehicles in question at the expense of the respondent.
(3) With costs as demanded.
That the interpellant appellant rebutted these demands by claiming:
(1) In the first place the lack of the integrity of the proceedings since the vehicles indicated are still property of tal-Barrani Co Ltd and registered in the name of the commercial partnership Concrete Work Ltd, for which reasonthese companies should be called into the proceedings.
(2) That without prejudice to the above and on the merit the applicant’s demands shouldbe rejected with costs since:
(i) From nowhere does there result any lease agreement which gives rise to the payment claimed and furthermore;
(ii) On the basis of para six (6) of the writing of the 23rd January, 1989 the applicant had accepted and bound himself to hold the same machinery without any pretension or reservation for payment of compensation and thus in default of such agreement, no amount can be due to the lack of the elements required by law in regard to the same.
Saving other exceptions.
That in virtue of a judgement of the Honourable Civil Court First Hall, of the 28th May, 2013 in the names premised it upheld the demands of the respondent applicants.
That the interpellant appellant felt aggrieved by the said judgement and is humbly filing an appeal therefrom.
That the facts which gave rise to this cause are in brief the following:
That by means of a private writing which bears the date of the 23rd January, 1989 the interpellant appellant bought and acquired various machinery from the respondent which machinery were and still are the property of tal-Barrani Co. Ltd and registered in the name of the commercial partnership Concrete Works Ltd.
That when the interpellant went to collect this machinery he found that they were not of the quality agreed and objected to pay with the consequence that the respondent filed procedures for payment of the bill of exchange representing the price by means of procedures number 747/89, and on the other hand the interpellant appellant had filed procedures to neutralise the same bill of exchange by means of writ of summons number 1195/90.
That the said procedures were both concludedin favour of the respondent.
That by means of a private writing of the 1st October, 2010 the parties had concluded once and for all any pendencies resulting from the said legal procedures.
That although it is the case that the interpellant respondenthad not collectedthe machinery merit of these procedures till the date of the 1st October, 2010 and till this daythe least one expected is that the respondent file the present procedures.
That the grievances are clear and consist in the following:
(1) That the Honourable Court of First Instance with due respect could never uphold the first demand ‘in toto’.
That the first demand of the respondent reads:
(1) Whilst finding the respondent responsible for the damages caused to the applicant resulting from the facts declared in this application consisting amongst others in: (i) legal expenses, (ii) transport expenses; and (iii) damages for the occupation of the property of the interpellant, liquidate the damages mentioned and condemn the respondent to pay them with interests till the date of effective payment.
That from the totality of the proof it results that:
(1) The plaintiff confirmed that he was not asking for compensation for the occupation of his land.
(2) That the plaintiff removed the machineryin property of a company which he had together with his brother Luboil Manufacturers Co Ltd.
(3) That the company accepted in agreement with the respondent appellantto hold the indicated machinery in its property by leasing the space at the rate of €23.29 daily in the amount of €17,001.70.
(4) That a Warrant of Prohibitory Injunction which cost €64 had been issued.
That from these facts as summarised by the Court of First Instance it results that:
(a) the place were allegedly these vehicles were taken is not the property of the respondent appellant.
In his first demand the respondent appellant emphasises that he wants compensationto make good for the damages caused to him as a consequence of the occupation of his property by the interpellant.
With all respect it results well from the evidence of the same applicant appellant, as well as from the evidence given by Michael Fenech, that the place where these vehicles were taken to belongs to the commercial partnership Luboil Manufacturers Co Ltdand not the respondent appellant.
That thus the respondent appellant, can never ask for the payment of damages caused to him for the occupation of his property since: (a) the property where they were taken to is not his and the demand as made in his own name and not in the name of the company Luboil.
……omissis……
That thus it is respectfully submitted that the observation of the Honourable Court of First Instance that: It is the casethat where the plaintiff put those trucks belongs to his brother and the plaintiff himself, but as statednobody does anything for nothing and the presumption is that the service a person gives to another is given with the intention of compensation is an observation which overrides every legal principlewhich gives every company, a distinct juridical personality and this in line with thatjust submitted further up.
That thus this demand should have been rejected.
(b) That as regards the damages claimed regarding the demand for the issuing of a Warrant of Prohibitory Injunction with all respect, the respondent appellant did not show anywhere what the outcome of this demand was.
It is respectfully submitted that this demand was never concluded and the Court never decreed the same warrant which is still pending till this day and this simply because the respondent appellant never abided by the Court’s requirements.
(2) That furthermoreit doesnot result that between the partiesthere was an agreement in virtue of which the interpellant appellant bound himself to make good for any expenses incurred by the respondent, as regards the storage or lease of the vehicles indicated.
(i) That the writing of 1989 is clear and detailed and from nowhere does it result that the interpellant appellant had to make good for any payments resulting from the fact that the respondent held the said vehicles.
That with due respect, although the Court of First Instance, directly avoidedthis version indirectly, it is upholding it so much so that it basedthe justificationof its decision on letters directed to the interpellant appellant.
……omissis……
That with due respect it is submitted also that there is a clear contradiction in that expressed by the Honourable Court of First Instance.
In the first place it pronounced itself that nobody does anything for nothing and that whoever gives a service is to get paid for it, at the same time it is accepting that clause six (6) above indicated does not refer to the fact whether rent is to be paid or not but it refers only as to whom the risk passes.
With all respect, for which reason the respondent, chose not to demand any compensation for the period 1989 to 2009, when the principle established is that nobodygives a service for nothing.
Not because it was obvious due to the agreement between the parties and this was accepted by the same respondent appellant, that the storage was the responsibility of the respondent appellantand that the risk was for the respondent and this till the relative transfers were made.
That thus in the humble submission of the interpellant, the Honourable Court of First Instance interpreted clause six incorrectly and outside the spirit of the same agreement.
(ii) That also and with respect the Honourable Court of First Instance totally ignored the writing of the 1st October, 2010.
That this writing had to close once and for all any pendency resulting from the lawsuits 747/89 and 1195/1990.
That thus if from this writing which is the last writing signed between the parties as regards any pendency resulting from the writing of the 23rd January, 1989 it does not result that the interpellant appellant had to pay the respondent appellant some form of damages as pretended by him, how could the Honourable Court of First Instance, condemn the interpellant appellant for the payment of damages allegedly resulting before the 1st October 2010?
Thatwith due respect how can it be accepted that after the parties met, discussed and settled all the pendencies regarding that resulting from these two lawsuits, the respondent pretends to ignore completely and to make demands which were extinguished?
It is respectfully submitted for some unknown reason by the the interpellant the Honourable Court of First Instance did not take cognizance of this writing since it is the humble opinion of the interpellant appellant that if it had taken cognizance of it it would have reached a different conclusion.
Thus the interpellant appelant whilst referring to the proof produced and reserving to bring forwardall the other proof permittedto him by law, prays with respect that this Honourable Court revokes and cancels the judgement appealed and this by upholding the grievances of the interpellant and reject the demands of the respondent appellant, with costs of both instances against the same respondent.
Notify: Michael Angelo Fenech, 1, Marina Alley, No 3, Kalkara and
1, Sqaq l-Ixprunara, Kalkara
Adv. Frank Portelli, LL.D.
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 2010
2010By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal of 30th September, 2013 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 p.l.c. (C22334) ofTriq Fra Diego, Marsa MRS 1501,filed a Claim on the 26th June, 2013 whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Kreaton Cutajar (ID 600977M) of19, Triq it-Tabib Jimmy Farrugia, Tarxien, to pay the plaintiff company the sum of €395.61, which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With costs and legal interests.
The case (Claim Number 379/13NHV) is put off on the 7th January, 2014 at 12.05 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 2011
2011By a decree given by the Civil Court First Hall on 12th December, 2013 on the application of Scicluna Carmelo, of Wednesday, 29th January, 2014at eleven in the morning (11.00 a.m.), has been fixed for the Sale by Auction to be held at Flat 2, Maltese Court, Triq Mons. Anton Cilia, Żebbuġ, of the following items seized from the property of Zhong Guowei.
Television, furniture pieces, frames and various other objects.
NB:The said objects will be sold as described in the acts of the judicial sales number 22/2013.
Marvic Farrugia
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 2012
2012It is being notified that by a decree dated 17th December, 2013 given by the Criminal Court (Judge Dr Michael Mallia LL.D.) after an application filed by HSBC Bank Malta plc and dated 6th December, 2013 Compilation number 720/2010 in the case:The Police (Inspector Pierre Grech) versus RamonFenech,aged 30, manager, son of Raymond and Frances née Brincat, born in Pietà on the 14th of September, 1983 and residing at 5, ‘Arienne’, Il-Madonna tal- Ġebla Street, Gżira, and holder of identity card number 489683M, acceded to the request of HSBC Bank Malta plc in the sense that the Court ordered that the freezing order should not apply to the loan granted by the Bank prior to the publication of the said order. Moreover, the Court authorises the payments of the debt.
The publication of this order is being published in terms of Article 22A (1) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap.101 of the Laws of Malta and Article 23A of the Criminal Code Cap. 9 of the Laws of Malta following another publication made on the 8th November, 2013 after a decree dated 30th October, 2013 and following another publication made on the 27th August, 2013 after a decree dated 21st July, 2010 of the Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Inquiry where the Court ordered the attachment in the hands of third parties in a general manner all monies and other movable and immovable property which may be due to or belonging to Ramon Fenech.
Dr Yvette Borg LL.D.
for the Registrar Criminal Courts and Criminal Tribunals
Notice 2013
2013It is hereby notified that by virtue of a decree given on the 29th November, 2013 the Court of Magistrates (Gozo), Superior Jurisdiction, General Section, ordered the publication of the subjoined notice for the purposes of service in terms of Article 187 (3) of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta, and this with regard to Dr Edric and Anne, spouses Bonello, of Manor Court, Flat 1C, Block C, First Floor, Triq it-Turisti, Qawra, Malta.
Victor and Helen married Xerri (27165G u 29167G respectively), of Vikhel, Santa Venera Street, Xagħra, Gozo, on the 19th August, 2013 filed a sworn application in the Court of Magistrates (Gozo), Superior Jurisdiction, General Section, number 57/2013 PC in names: “Victor Xerri et versus Dr Edric Bonello et”, on the 19th August, 2013 wherein they requested the Court to determine and decide this case without proceeding to trial and this in terms of Article 167 of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta, to declare respondents as being debtors in favour of applicants in the sum of €34,579 this being the sum of €33,000 loaned to them and the accrued interests according to law, to condemn said respondents to pay applicants the said amount.
The lawsuit is set for hearing for the 22nd January, 2014 at 9.00 a.m.
Silvio Xerri
Deputy Registrar
Notice 2014
2014By a decree given by the Court of Magistrates (Gozo) Inferior Jurisdiction, on the 10th December, 2013 on the application of Kenneth Grech Company Ltdin the records of judicial sale by auction number 23/2012 (subsequent to warrant of seizure number 132/2012), in the names of Kenneth Grech Company Ltd vs Tower Products Ltd et, of Monday 13th January, 2014 at 9.45 a.m. and until the highest bid is adjudicated has been fixed for the Sale by Auction to be held at the Gozo Court’s edifice in Cathedral Square, Victoria, Gozo, of the following items:
1 A white van of the makePeugeot having registration number IBL 412.
2 A blue vehicle of the make BMW having registration number JPI 999.
The said items are the property of Tower Products Limited (C 4283) and Paul Portelli (ID 1856G).
Jaclyn Magrin
For the Registrar Gozo Courts and Tribunal
Notice 2015
2015It is hereby notified that by an application filed in the Court of Magistrates (Gozo) Voluntary Jurisdiction on the 16th December, 2013 (Application number 160/2013), Joseph Vella and others requested the opening of the succession ofMarilyn Vella,spinster, daughter of Joseph Vella and Pauline née Camilleri, born in Victoria, Gozo and where she died on the first of October, of the year two thousand and thirteen, intestate, and which opening of succession is to be made in favour of Joseph and Pauline Vella as to one half each.
Wherefore any person who considers to have an interest in the matter is hereby called upon to appear before the said Court and to bring forward his objections hereto by a minute to be filed within fifteen days from the posting of the banns.
Maureen Xuereb
For the Registrar, Gozo Courts and Tribunals
Notice 2016
2016By means of adecree given by the First Hall Civil Court on the 9th October, 2013 in the records of the Sworn Application in the names McCormack John vs Bell Robert et, application number 884/10 FS, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the defendants in terms of Article 187(3) of Cap. 12.
By means of a Notice of Hearing of a cause issued by the Registry Superior Courts, on Tuesday 2nd July, 2013 the cause Application Number 884/10 FS, in the names McCormack John vs Bell Robert et, which was reappointed from cancelled, from Thursday 13th June, 2013, was put againforhearingonWednesday 9th October, 2013 at 10.30 a.m.
By order of the same Court above mentioned, the cause Application number 884/10 FS was put off to the 3rd December, 2013 at 9.15 a.m. and subsequently put off to the 11th February, 2014 at 9.15 a.m.
Applicant: 46, Triq il-Mazzola, San Pawl il-Baħar.
Defendants: The Baron Bar, Rokku Street, Buġibba.
Tavern Inn, Maskli Street, Qawra.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LL.D.
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 2017
2017By a decree given by the Civili Court, First Hall on 19th December, 2013, on the application of 360 Food Import Limited of Wednesday, 22nd January, 2014 at eleven in the morning (11.00 a.m.) has been fixed for the Sale by Auction to be held at 149, Triq id-Dejqa, Valletta, of the following items seized from the property of Caruana Eleno.
Piano, Grand father clock, three seater sofa and armchair, sewing machine with cabinet, two (2) brass blow lamps.
The said objects will be sold as described in the acts of the file number 25/2013.
Bruno Zahra
For the Registrar of Civil Courts and Tribunals