Go Back
Court Notices published in Govt. Gazette No. 19,080 of the 26th April 2013
01/01/2013
Notice 677
677It is hereby notified that the Court of Magistrates (Malta) by means of a decree given on the 7th March 2013, in the records of the judicial letter number 2655/12, in the namesFogg Insurance Agencies Limited vs Elmo Insurance Limited et, ordered the following publication for the purpose of effecting service on the respondents, in terms of Article 187(3) of Cap. 12.
By means of a judicial letter filed in the Court of Magistrates (Malta) against Elmo Insurance Limited and John Muscat of Fingost House, Block A, Flat 9, Triq Mons Innocent Zammit, Msida, on the 12th October 2012, Fogg Insurance Agencies Limited (C-597) for and on behalf of the foreign company Argus Insurance Company (Europe) LimitedofLa Concorde, Abate Rigord Street, Ta’ Xbiex and Priscilla Zammit (I.D. 132679M) of 64, Theatre of Dreams, Triq Salvu Aquilina, Mosta, whilst referring to your judicial letter of the 20th September 2012, they strongly refute all the allegations therein contained as unfounded in fact and at law and solicit you not to file any useless proceedings in their respect in connection with the car accident which occured on the 28th November 2010 at about 9.07 p.m. in Triq Dun Karm, Birkirkara between the vehicle registration number BBE 041, insured with the applicant Fogg Insurance Agencies Limited noe and driven by the applicant Priscilla Zammit and the vehicle with registration number BMW 912 insured by you John Muscat and insured with you Elmo Insurance Limited, and this because the same accident occured solely because of your carlessness, lack of skill, negligence and lack of observance of the traffic regulations on your part John Muscat.
And also Gordon Zammit (I.D. 248277M) of 64, Theatre of Dreams, Triq Salvu Aquilina, Mosta, as owners of the vehicle registration number BBE 041 solicit you in solidum between you so that within three (3) days you come forward for the liquidation and payment of damages suffered by him as a result of the same accident.
So much for your own guidance and to avoid costs and further procedures.
This judicial letter is being made particularly, but not limitedly, for the purpose of interrupting prescription in terms of Cap. 12 and 16 of the Laws of Malta.
With costs and legal interest.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 678
678By a decree of the Consumer Claims Tribunal of 26th March 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).
Francis Falzon of Verdala Court, Flat 6, Triq Ras il-Qawra, Qawra SPB 359, filed a Claim on the 14th January 2013 whereby he asked the Tribunal to condemn Stephan Fenech of Alu Care Mosta Ltd, Alu Care Buildings, Triq il-Kappar, Mosta MST013, to pay the plaintiff the sum of€460 which amount is due to the plaintiff.
The case (CCT Number 15/13) is put off on the 29th May 2013 at 1.45 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 679
679By means of a decree given by the First Hall Civil Court on the 1st November 2012, in the records of the Sworn Application, in the names Casha John Mary sive Jimmy vs Jupiter Company Limited (C 6832) et, application number 79/10 AE, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondents, Veronica Gauci, Farquhar Gauci, Theophania Gauci, Ceridwen Gauci and Rhiannon Gauci, in terms of Article 187(3) of Cap. 12.
By means of an Application filed in the Civil Court First Hall, in the records of the Application Number 79/10 AE, John Mary sive Jimmy Casha (I.D. 241457M) vs Jupiter Company Limited (C 6832) and Joseph Gauci (I.D. 329353M), not appointed, the applicant John Mary sive Jimmy Casha (I.D. 241457M) respectfully pleaded:
1. That during the pendency of these procedures the defendant Joseph Gauci, died, as results from the death certificate hereby attached and marked Doc. ‘A’.
2. No one of the heirs of Joseph Gauci, came forward to become a party to the suit;
3. The interpellant has an interest that this lawsuit be continued.
Thus in view of the above, the interpellant asks that this Honourable Court:
1. To fix a time limit so that the heirs of the deceased Joseph Gauci, come forward to become a party to the suit and in default there be appointed deputy curators to represent the inheritance of Joseph Gauci, in the records of the cause and in the subsequent acts in terms of Article 807 of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta.
Applicant: John Mary Casha, 11, St. Joseph Street, Birkirkara.
Civil Court First Hall
Judge Hon. Giannino Caruana Demajo
Sworn Application number 79/2010.
John Mary Casha
versus
Jupiter Company Limited et.
The Court,
Having seen once again the decree of the plaintiff of the 15th July 2010, the decree of the 16th August 2010 and the decree of the 7th October 2010;
Having seen the note of the 19th October 2010 and the documents attached to it;
Having seen art 807 of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure;
Immediately orders that the application be notified to the presemptive heirs therein mentioned, who shall have one month from service to declare whether they intend to continue the cause as stated in art. 807(2) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure and in default order, after the bann is duly notified as required by art. 809 of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure, there be appointed a curatorwhose turnitis according to the list to represent the interests of the deceased.
Sgd. Giannino Caruana Demajo.
Judge.
Notify: Presumptive Heirs: 1. Veronica Gauci and Farquhar Gauci ‘Theofar Court’ Apartment A, n/s Off Constitution Street, Mosta.
2. Theophania Gauci, Jupiter, Constitution Street, Mosta.
3. Ceridwen Gauci and Thianon Gauci, Saturn Apartments, Apartment C, Triq il-Ħarifa, Buġibba.
The Sworn Application in the names Casha John Mary sive Jimmy vs Jupiter Company Limited (C 6832) et application number 79/10 AE, has been put off for hearing to the 26th April 2013, at 8.45 a.m.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LL.D.
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 680
680NOTICE
CIVIL COURT (FAMILY SECTION)
Whereas Maria Borg (I.D. 197286M) filed an application under oath (No. 76/13 RGM) demanding CORRECTION in the ACT OF BIRTH, with number 2827/2009, 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,
Bruno Zahra
For Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 681
681By a decree given on 15th April, 2013, by the Civil Court First Hall, the Court ordered that the extract hereunder mentioned be published for the purpose of service according to Article 187 (3) of the Code of Organization and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12).
By the application filed in the Civil Court First Hall on 26th June, 2013 by JC Hydraulics Products Limited, is being asked that the Court orders the Sale by Auction of the:
Truck of the make Leyland DAF, white in colour, with chassis number XLRTE 85 WCOE 405474.
The said item is the property of Abdilla Construct Limited (C11415) u Saviour Abdilla (I.D. 101245M).
Marvic Farrugia
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 682
682By means of an application filed in the Civil Court of Voluntary Jurisdiction Section, on the 27th March 2013, Application Number 294/2013 by Dr Nicolette Vella for and on behalf of the heirs of the late Carmel Demicoli, whereby she prayed that it be declared open in favour of Anthony, Joseph, Michell, Mario, Lourdes, Nevil, Sharon and Ritianne brothers and sisters Demicoli, children of the decujus and this in the quota of one sixteenth (1/16) undivided share each one of them; and the remainder one half (1/2) undivided share in favour of Loreta Demicoli wife of the decujus the SUCCESSION of Carmel Demicoli, husband of the same Loreta Demicoli, son of the late Carmel Demicoli and Josephine née Spiteri, born in Birkirkara, resided in Swieqi and died in Tal-Qorqq limits of Imsida on the 9th March 2010 aged 63 holding identity card number 0314346(M) who died intestate.
Thus whoever considers that he has an interest is called so that by means of a note he enters his opposition according to Article 537(1) et seq of the Code of Organization and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12).
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar, Civil Court and Tribunals
Notice 683
683By a decree of the 30th January, 2013, given by the Civil Court First Hall, the Court ordered that the extract hereunder mentioned be published for the purpose of service according to Article 187(3) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12).
That by a note ‘ai termini’ of Art. 346 of Cap. 12, filed by the company Xuereb Installations Limited (C15321) on the 9th of January, 2013, by which he is entering as an execution creditor in the acts of the judicial sale by auction in the names Bank of Valletta plc vs Pyramid Hotels Limited numbered 102/11.
MARVIC FARRUGIA
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 684
684By a decree given on the 15th April, 2013 by the Civil Court First Hall, the Court ordered that the extract hereunder mentioned be published for the purpose of service according to Article 187 (3) of the Code of Organization and Civil Procedure (Chapter 12).
By decree given by the CIVIL COURT, FIRST HALL on 3rd April, 2013, on the application of JC HYDRAULICS PRODUCTS LTD, Monday, 13th May, 2013 at 11.30 a.m. has been fixed for the SALE BY AUCTION to be held at WELCOME GARAGE, TRIQ L-ISPERANZA, MOSTA of the following item seized from the property of ABDILLA CONSTRUCT LTD and ABDILLA SAVIOUR.
Truck of the make Leyland DAF, white in colour, with chassis number XLRTE 85 WCOE 405474.
N.B. The said object will be sold as described in the acts of file number 31/12.
Marvic Farrugia
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 685
685By decree given by the CIVIL COURT, FIRST HALL on 19th April, 2013, on the application of BANK OF VALLETTA PLC, Thursday, 4th July, 2013 at 11.30 a.m., has been fixed for the SALE BY AUCTION, to be held in THE FIRST FLOOR OF THESE LAW COURTS, REPUBLIC STREET, VALLETTA of the following property.
The tenement numbered twenty five (25), in Sqaq San Pawl, Birkirkara, named ‘Geneve’, subject to annual and perpetual ground rent of nine euro and thirty two euro cents (€9.32), free and unencumbered, with all its rights and enjoyments valued at one hundred and thirty five thousand and seven hundred euro (€135,700).
The said tenement is the property of MALLIA MATTHEW (I.D. 580674M) and FENECH SARAH (I.D. 451778M).
N.B. The said tenement will be sold as described in the acts of file number 84/12.
Marvic Farrugia
For the Registrar of Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 686
686By means of a decree given on the 5th April 2013 by the Court of Appeal, in the records of the Application of Appeal, in the names Marie Therese Fenech et vs The Commissioner for Value Added Tax, application number 256/10 JZM, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondents, Marie Therese Fenech, Richard Fenech and Mario Lino Fenech, in terms of Article 187(3) of Cap. 12.
By means of an Application of Appeal, filed, in the Court of Appeal, Application number 256/10 JZM, in the names Marie Therese (I.D. 659329(M) Richard Fenech (I.D. 32470G) and Mario Lino Fenech (I.D. 50264G) in their capacity as presumptive heirs of the deceased Frank X. Fenech (I.D. 717227M) vs The Commissioner for Value Added Tax, on the 30th November 2012, the applicant Commissioner for Tax (previously Commissioner for Value Added Tax) respectfully pleaded:
That by means of an application brought forward before the First Hall Civil Court, on the 17th March 2010, the applicants premised:
That the deceased Frank X. Fenech, who died on the 18th February 2010, had recieved on the same day of his death a note for the demand of payment of the Commissioner for Value Added Tax, in virtue of which he was called upon in his own name as well as Director in the name and in representation of the company Auto Repairs and Services Limited (C 20077) to pay the amount of (€42,620.69) as Value Added Tax;
That the applicants have an interest to contest this claim of the respondent Commissioner in their capacity of presumptive heirs of the deceased Frank X. Fenech, and by means of the present application and as shall result during the pleadings, contrary proof shall be brought which shows the amount pretended by the respondent.
That the demand of the Commissioner for Value Added Tax, is unfounded in fact and at law for the following reasons;
That the deceased Frank X. Fenech, was not a director of the company Auto Repairs and Services Limitedand this even before he recieved the said note.
That the company Auto Repairs and Services Limited, is in the process of winding up following a Court order, as differently presided.
That subordinately and without prejudice to the above article 66(5) of the Act for Value Added Tax, does not apply in regard to the interpellant Frank X. Fenech due to the fact that he did not have under his administration or control any money or property of the company Auto Repairs and Services Limited;
That thus the Notice issued by the respondent against the deceased Frank X. Fenech cannot constitute an executive title in regard to his inheritance.
That on the basis of the same premises, the applicant asked the Honourable First Court, to declare that the claim made against the deceased Frank X. Fenech, by the Commissioner for Value Added Tax, by means of a note for the demand of payment of the 16th February 2010, as one which is unfounded in fact and at law;
That the respondent Commissioner for Value Added Tax pleaded:
That the demand of the applicant is unfounded in fact and at law for the following reasons:
1. That the amount demanded by means of a note for payment merit of these procedures, represents the amount due by the company Auto Repairs and Services Limited, for the period before the beginning of the process of winding up of the same company.
...omissis...
2. That with all respect, the fact that the company Auto Repairs and Services Limited, is now in the process of winding up is totally irrelevant in regard to the demand for payment made against Frank X. Fenech personally...omissis… The request in question is made against Frank X. Fenech personally, in so far as representative of the company Auto Repairs and Services Limited, in terms of Article 66(1) of Cap. 406 and thus responsible in solidum with the same company in terms of Articles 66(5) and 66(3) of Cap. 406.
3. That the applicants have to prove that Frank X. Fenech, did not have under his direction, administration or control, any money or property of the companyAuto Repairs & Services Limited, as alleged by them ...omissis… That furthermore and without prejudice to the above Frank X. Fenech, acted in bad faith and contravened Article 66(4) of Cap. 406 in so far as on the 31st July 2006, he signed a declaration of solvency in his capacity of director on behalf of the company Auto Repairs & Services, although subsequently it resulted that in fact the same company did not have enough funds to pay its creditors.
4. That thus the notice issued to the respondent in regard to Frank X. Fenech constitutes an executive title in terms of Article 59 of Cap. 406 against him personally.
That by means of a judgement given on the thirteenth (13) of November 2012, the First Hall Civil Court decided the cause in the names premised in the following manner;
For all the reasons premised, this Court, is deciding as regards the demand of the applicant by:
In the First place declaring that the deceased Frank X. Fenech was not for all intents and purposes of law, responsible in solidum with the company Auto Repairs and Services Limited (C 20077) for the payment of Value Added Tax for the period between the 1st November 2004 and the 31st July 2006.
In the second place declare for the purposes of Art 59(1) of Cap. 406, that the notice of the 16th February 2010, which the respondent issued to the deceased Frank X. Fenech, does not constitute an executive title against the same Frank X. Fenech, in the contextand for the purposes of Title V11 Section 1 of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure.
That the respondent Commissioner, today appellant,felt aggrieved by this judgement and is thus humbly filing this appeal.
That the grievances of the appellant are clear and manifest and consist in the following:
The First Grievance, the Honourable First Court stated:
‘The request of the applicant specifically relates to three of the notices for payment sent to them by the respondent after the death of Frank X. Fenech were each one of them was called as the heir of the same Frank X. Fenech, to pay the value added tax which was pretended from Frank X. Fenech, as representative of Auto Repairs.
With reference to the three notices this Court, points out that on the basis of the testementary searches of Frank X. Fenech, that although the applicants Mario and Richard brothers Fenech are the testate heirs of Frank X. Fenech, the applicant Maria Theresa Fenech, is not his heir.
That these considerations of the Honourable First Court, are always with all respect, mistaken, in so far as the first paragraph quoted the present case does not relate to the three notices sent to the heirs of the deceased Frank X. Fenech, but this caserelates to the notice sent to Frank X. Fenech during his lifetime.
As regards the three notices sent in the name of the heirs of Frank X. Fenech after his death the same heirs instituted other proceeedings ..omissis.. and this in order that they contest the same noticessent to them personally qua heirs of Frank X. Fenech. Thus these latter notices sent to the heirs of Frank X. Fenech are not the merit of the present cause as indicated by the Court of First Instance.
As regards the second paragraph above mentioned, the Court of First Instance, arrived to the conclusion that Mario and Richard Fenech are only the heirs of Frank X. Fenech, and that Marie Therese Fenech is not his heir. The applicant respectfully points out that infact Marie Therese Fenech, is the heir of Frank X. Fenech.
The Second Grievance – That the Court of First Intance concluded that:
‘That it resulted to this Court, from the totality of the proof ...omissis... On the basis of the preponderance of the proof the deceased Frank X. Fenech, cannot be considered that he was responsible in his own name in solidum for payment together with the taxable person for the tax demanded by the respondent’.
That from the extract quoted it results the Honourable Court of First Instance, that Frank X. Fenech, did not violate any obligation contemplated in Article 66(4) of Cap. 406 and thus applied the proviso of Article 66(5) of the same Chapter of the Law that provides that when no obligationis violated under Article 66(4) the responsibility of the representative is limited to the money or the value of other property controlled or administered by the same representative and the Court concluded that once Frank X. Fenech, did not did not administer or control other funds belonging to the company he was not responsible in solidum with the company.
That always with all respect the appellant does not agree with this conclusion and this for the following reasons:
The Article 66(5) of Cap. 406 provides that: ‘Representative’ shall be responsible in solidum with the person he represents for the tax due by that person’ in the same manner Article 66(3) (a) of Cap. 406 providesthat ‘Without prejudice to the provisions of subarticle (5) …omissis... Thus from a reading of these two subarticles it results that the rule is in terms of Cap. 406, Frank X. Fenech, qua director of the company Auto Repairs & Services Limited, was responsible, in solidum in the same manner and up to the same limit.
The exception to this rule is found in the proviso to article 66(5).
....omissis…
This exception thus provides that the responsibility of the director is limited to money or value of property he administers or controls belonging to the company of which he is a director and which are due to the same company.
However when does this plea come in force.
In order that this plea comes in force there have two recurr two elements and namely in the first place the representative has acted in good faith and in the second place that the same representative has not violated the provisions of Article 66(4) and any other provision of the Act in question.
That in this regard it is to be stated that proof was brought forward or rather judgement given by the Court of Magistrates as a Court of Criminal Judicature ...omissis... by means of which Frank X. Fenech was found guilty by the Criminal Court (which judgement was not appealed) which contravene certain provisions and obligations imposed in terms ofthe Act for Value Added Tax.
...omissis...
The Third Grievance.
That withour prejudice to the premised the appellant respectfully submitsthat infact not even the other elements to the proviso to Article 66(5) were satisfied.
...omissis...
Frank X. Fenech declares that the company of which he was a director was in a position to statisy all its debts amongst which the value added tax. Thus it cannot be stated that Frank X. Fenech had acted in good faith when he signed the said declaration.
The Fourth Grievance. That in its decision the Court of First Instance stated thus, To this Court, it results from the totality of the proof that although from the date of its commencment till the day when the company was declared dissolved by the Court, Frank X. Fenech, remained a director of Auto Repairs and thus the only function which results that he had, was to attend the Board of Directors from time to time.
That always with all respect, the applicant does not agree with this conclusion of the Court of First Instance and this because linked to the position of director there was the obligation of administration and control of the company.
...omissis…
That thus it is useless for the applicant to argue that he left the administration of the company in the hand of third parties or that he was a non-executive director.
Thus the respondent appellant, whilst referring to all the proof produced before the Court of First Instance and whilst reserving to bring forward all the proof permitted by law, prays with respect that this Honourable Court, cancels, revokes and annuls the judgement given by the First Hall Civil Court, on the 13th November 2012, in the cause in the names Marie Therese (I.D. 659329M) Richard Fenech (I.D. 32470G) and Mario Lino Fenech (I.D. 50264G)in their capacity as presumptive heirs of the deceased Frank X. Fenech (I.D. 717227M) vs the Commissioner for Value Added Tax, above referred too, with costs against the respondent applicants.
Applicant: Centre Point Building, Ta’ Paris Road, Birkirkara.
Respondents: ‘San Anton’ Flat 8, Triq Locker, Sliema.
ADV. FRANK PORTELLI, LL.D.
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 687
687By means of a decree given on the 5th April 2013, by the Court of Appeal, in the records of the Application of Appeal, in the names Daniela Mizzi vs Duncan Peter Mizzi, application number 257/11 RM, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent Daniela Mizzi, in terms of Article 187(3) of Chapter 12.
By means of an Application filed in the Court of Appeal, Sworn Application number 257/11 RGM, in the names Daniela Mizzi vs Duncan Peter Mizzi, on the 11th February 2013, the appellant Duncan Peter Mizzi I.D. 168075M respectfully pleaded:
That this is an appeal from a preliminary judgement given by the Honourable Civil Court (Family Section) on the 22nd January 2013, in the records of the cause of separation in the names premised.
That the respondent plaintiff is proceeding for separation against the appellant defendant who is contesting some of the demands made by her and on the 10th July 2012, the respondent plaintiff, filed, an application, in virtue of which she askedthat an order for the stopping of the community of acquests between the parties be given, before final judgement is delivered.
The facts which relate to this demand are the followingand are essentially those brought forward by the appellant in his reply of the 28th August 2012 and namely:
i. That theparties were married in March 2006 and from this marriage they did not have any children.
ii. That they were in a relationshipand lived togetherfor ten (1) years before marriage.
iii. ...omissis...
iv. That at that time, the parties who cohabitated, in order to improve their conditions, agreed to form a travel company.
v. ...omissis...
vi. ...omissis...
vii. That beforetheir marriage the parties had purchased the matrimonial home which the respondent plaintiff mentioned in her application.
viii. That disagreement arose between the parties.
ix. That in June 2009, the respondent plaintiff, decided to leave home, but returned, but after some months went again and this time definitely.
x. That at this time the plaintiff respondent, prohibited the appellant to attend to the company.
xi. That the appellant still does not work and for various months was suffering from a psychological blow owing to the fact that over a period of some weeks, he had lost his workand his marriage broke down.
2. That from that brought forward it should have been clear that:
i. that the respondent plaintiff had in her possession the only thing which creates the commonwealth and namely the company.
ii. the respondent plaintiff is not permitting her husband to participate in this wealth.
iii. the matrimonial home and the bank debt are respectively common assets and debts but they are paraphernal assets and debts.
That in virtue ofa judgement given on the 22nd January 2013, the Honourable Court of First Instance, decided regarding the said application of the respondent by ordering the stopping of the community of acquests, between the parties in terms of article 55 of Chapter 16 of the Laws of Malta,ordered that this Order be notified to the Director of the Public Registry, at the expense of the plaintiff and regarding the expenses providedthat the expenses be reserved for the final judgement’.
That the appellant is aggrieved by this judgement and this grievance consists in the following;
1. As correctly noted by the Honourable Court of First Instance in its judgement the Legislator stated (Article 55(4) of the Civil Codethat before ordering that the community of acquests be stopped, the Court, is to examine if any party shall suffer a prejudice which is not proportionate with the stopping of the community of acquests. The Honourable Court of First Instance, found that the appellant was not going to suffer a disproportionate prejudice. The appellant does not agree with this conclusion.
...omissis...
2. That the appellant submits however that the criterion imposed by the legislator and quoted in the preceeding paragraph, is not the only condition which the Court, is to safeguard, due to the delicate nature of the remedy and for the same reason, the Court, is to apply the concept ofdisproportionate prejudice in the most ample manner and to consider the unjustified enrichment of one party as a disproportionate prejudice to the other party.
i. that all the proof which relates to the extent of the wealth and debt (including that due to the paraphernal wealth of the parties) forming the community of acquests, till there is an event which renders this delay as a prejudice in itself.
ii. has reasonably decided that none of the parties can allege as acquired following the termination, what it had acquired and held concealed before the termination.
iii. that the partywhich demandsthe granting of a remedy shall have clearly shown that it shall suffer economically and unjustly if this remedy is not issued. And that the damagethat it will suffer cannot be addressed by the Court in the eventual and final judgement.
iv. the Court shall have established that any party or other does not merit to enjoy from the wealth which is being acquired by the other party, or does not merit to pay for the debt that the other party is incurring.
3. That the plaintiff is asking for this remedy in limine litis without the Court having heard the proof regarding all the elements which expressly or implicitly are prior to the granting of the remedy.
Thus the appellant, whilst referring to all the records of this cause and all the proof brought forward and reserving to bring forward all that proof permitted according to Law, respectfully prays that this Honourable Court, revokes, dismisses and cancels the preliminary judgement appealed, given, by the Honourable Civil Court (Family Section) on the 22nd January 2013 and insteadreject the demand made by the respondent plaintiff in its application, of the 10th July 2012, with costs against her.
Notify: Daniela Mizzi, ‘Fressenda’, Triq il-Mensija, St. Julian’s.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LL.D.
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 688
688By means of a decree given by the Civil Court First Hall, on the 8th February 2013, in the records the Garnishee Order number 1619/11, in the names Michael Attard Limited vs Albert Vella, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent, in terms of Article 187(3) et. of Cap. 12.
By means of a Note filed in the First Hall Civil Court, in the records of the garnishee order number 1619/11, in the names Michael Attard C 32362 vs Albert Vella, the interpellants declared and premised:
That this garnishee order was filed to secure the rights vaunted by it in the cause in the names Michael Attard Limited vs Albert Vella.
Declares also that this cause was decided on the 10th January 2012, Application Number 1140/11 JZM, in the names above mentioned, which cause today is res judicata.
Thus the warrant above mentioned in terms of Article 838B (2) has the effect of an executive warrant in the sum of 124,068.88 (Euro) (One hundred twenty four thousand and sixty eight euro and eighty eight euro cents) capital besides interests and costs.
Notify: Albert Vella - Primrose, Triq Mons. Innocenz Zammit, Msida.
Bank of Valletta - Valletta.
HSBC Bank Malta - Valletta.
Lombard Bank Malta - Valletta.
APS Bank Ltd - Valletta.
Banif Bank Malta - Gżira.
Mediterranean Bank - 10, Sur Santa Barbara, Valletta.
Volksbank Malta Ltd - Dingli Street, Sliema.
Accountant General –Tezor, Floriana.
Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals - Courts of Justice, Valletta.
Transport Malta - Floriana.
Decree.
Agreed.
Iff. Anna Felice.
21/12/12.
Hon. Anna Felice LLD.
Judge.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LL.D.
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 689
689By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal of 24th January 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) of Spencer Hill, Marsa, MRS1950,filed a Claim on the 31st October 2012 whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Joanne Camilleri (I.D. 550374M) of Gawra, Flat 1, Triq l-Infetti, Ħaż-Żebbuġ, to pay the plaintiff company the sum of €380.32 which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With costs and interests.
The case (Claim Number 742/12NHV) is put off on the 6th May 2013 at 12.05 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 690
690NOTICE
CIVIL COURT (FAMILY SECTION)
Whereas the plaintiff Alice Azzopardi (I.D. 139273 M) filed an application under oath (No. 77/13 AL) demanding CORRECTIONS the ACT OF BIRTH of Alice Azzopardi number 1392/1973in 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,
Rita Mangion
For Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 691
691By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal of the 28th February 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 (C24655) of Fra Diego Street, Marsa filed a Claim on the 6th July 2012 whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Kane Zammit (I.D. 250386M) of Flat 7E, Triq Bonavita, San Ġiljan, to pay the plaintiff company the sum of €1,228.88 which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With costs and interests.
The case (Claim Number 472/12NHV) is put off on the 6th May 2013 at 12.05 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 692
692By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal of the 28th September 2012, the publication of the following extract was ordered for the purpose of service in terms of Article 187(5) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12).
Mobisle Communications Limited (C24655) of Fra Diego Street, Marsa filed a Claim on the 15th June 2011 whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Richard Theodorus Buiteman of Caravaggio Court, T5B3, il-Ponta ta’ Tignè, Sliema for and on behalf of Quantum PC Limited of Rich Club, Dragonara Rd, Paceville, San Ġiljan, to pay the plaintiff company the sum of €2,709.94 which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With costs and interests.
The case (Claim Number 510/11YMS) is put off on the 23rd May 2013 at 12.30 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 693
693By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal of 8th April 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).
Bank of Valletta plc(C2833) of 1/5, Misraħ San Ġorg, Valletta, VLT 1190, filed a Claim on the 30th November 2012 whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Stephen Catania (I.D. 518484M) of Fatima, Flat 4, Triq San Lwiġi, Msida, to pay the plaintiff company the sum of €897.34 which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With costs and interests.
The case (Claim Number 802/12NHV) is put off on the 6th May 2013 at 12.05 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 694
694By decree given by the Civil Court, First Hall on the 1st April 2013, on the application of Bank of Valletta plc, Tuesday, 11th June, 2013 at noon, has been fixed for the SALE BY AUCTION to be held on the First Floor of these Law Courts, Republic Street, Valletta of the following property.
Flat, in the second level, internally marked with the number three (3) forming part of an unnumbered and unnamed block in Triq il-Għajn, Għajnsielem, Gozo, free and unencumbered with all its rights and appurtenances, including the co-proprietorship of the airspace overlying the flat, valued at sixty five thousand euro (€65,000).
The said tenement is the property of ATTARD JOHN I.D.: 834255(M).
N.B. The said tenement will be sold as described in the acts of the file number 105/2012.
Diane Mifsud
For the Registrar of Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 695
695By means of a decree given on the 10th April 2013, by the Civil Court First Hall, in the records of the Sworn Application, in the names Azzopardi Joahan pro et noe vs Cilia Roderick, application number 27/13 JRM, the following publication was ordered, for the purpose of service of Roderick Cilia, in terms of Article 187(3) of Cap. 12.
By means of an Application filed in the First Hall Civil Court, in the names Joahan Azzopardi (I.D. 484573M) in his own name and in the name and in representation of the company Jeamik Lifts Limited (C 43420) vs Roderick Cilia (I.D. 100678M) on the 15th January 2013, the applicant Joahan Azzopardi in his own name and in the name and in representation of the company Jeamik Lifts Limited (C 43420) the applicant proprio et nomine asked the respondent to state why this Honourable Court, saving any necessary and opportune declaration should not:
1. Declare and decide that the respondent is solely responsible for the accident which occurred on the 15th October 2012, in Triq Sebastjan Saliba, Għaxaq, in which incident the respondent, whilst he was driving the vehicle of the type Rover with registration number AAM628, with carelessness, lack of attention and lack of observance of the traffic regulations collided into the vehicle property of the applicant, with the consequence that the applicant suffered damages, and uphold the other demands in the application, amongst which the liquidation of damages.
With costs and interest against the respondent summoned so that a reference to his evidence be made.
Applicant: 12, Carinya, Triq Indri Magrin, Għaxaq.
Respondent: St Joseph Court, Flat 1, Triq Sebastjan Saliba, Għaxaq.
The Sworn Application in the names Azzopardi Joahan pro et noe vs Cilia Roderick, application number 27/13 JRM, has been put off to the 4th June 2013, at 9.00 a.m.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LL.D.
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals