Mur Lura
Court Notices published in Govt. Gazette No. 19,304 of 2 September 2014
01/01/2014
Notice 1327
1327By means of a decree given, by the First Hall Civil Court, on the 28th July 2014, in the records of the Sworn Application, in the names Satariano Christian pro et noe vs Satariano Albert pro et noe, application number 558/14 MCH, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent, in terms of Article 187(3) et seq. of Cap. 12.
By means of an Application filed in the Civil Court First Hall, in the names Christian Satariano (ID 26274M) in his own name and in his Cap.acity of shareholder and director in the company Salvatur V1 Fishing Company Limited vs Albert Satariano (ID 433753M) in his own name and in his Cap.acity of shareholder and director in the company Savatur V1 Fishing Company Limited and Salvatur V1 Fishing Company Limited (C 48198) on the 25th June 2014, the applicant humbly asked this Honourable Court;
1.......To order that the defendant company be dissolved and wound up in terms of the regulation 99(2) 9b) (V) of ‘ The Regulations Regarding Mercantile Vessels (Shipping Organisations –Private Companies) (Subsidiary Legislation 234.42 of the Laws of Malta ) and for the reasons therein indicated, appoint a suitable person as provisional administrator for the defendant company in terms of regulation 107 of the Regulations Relating to Merchant Vessels herein mentioned till this Honourable Court gives an order for the winding up of the defendant company.
This under those provisions and modalities that this Court deems fit to impose.
Notify: Mr Albert Satariano,
Belmont Heights, Block K/22,
St. Ignatius Junction, Sliema.
Salvatur VI Fishing Company Limited,
The Podium, Block C, Flat 3,
St. Mark Street,
St. Julian’s.
The Sworn Application in the names Satariano Christian pro et noe vs Satariano Albert pro et noe, application number 558/14 MCH, was put off for hearing to the 14th October 2014, at 9.00 a.m.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1328
1328By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal of 30th April 2014, 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 Triq Fra Diego, Marsa, MRS 1501, filed a Claim on the 14th March 2014 whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Elsatif Karen (ID 74886M)of 8 Sqaq Borton, Pietà, to pay the plaintiff company the sum of €552.56 which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With costs and interests.
The case (Claim Number 192/14GB) is put off on the 19th September 2014 at 12.30 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1329
1329By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal of 4th October 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 Triq Fra Diego, Marsa, MRS 1501, filed a Claim on the 28th May 2013 whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Jason Roy Mallia (ID 245809L) of 92 Shelmeo, Triq il-Barrakki, Ħal Qormi, to pay the plaintiff company the sum of €458.36 which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With costs and legal interests.
The case (Claim Number 315/13GB) is put off on the 19th September 2014 at 12.30p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Bann for Curators
1330Republic of Malta
To The Marshall of the Court.
By means of a decree by this Court, on the 31st July 2008, following a request of Lena Investments Limited and by decree of the Court above mentioned of the 7th July 2014, the heading was corrected to read Danseller Company Limited (C 35006) it was ordered that deputy curators be chosen to represent the unknown owner or owners, in the records of the Schedule of Deposit or contextual redemption of groundrent, in the names Lena Investment Limited and by decree of the 7th July 2014, the heading was corrected to read Danseller Company Limited (C 35006) vs Deputy Curators and in the relative and subsequent acts.
By means of a Schedule of Deposit and contextual redemption of Groundrent, in the names Lena Investments Limited vs Deputy Curators to represent the owner, owners, unknown heir, heirs or either of whom and by another decree of the Court above mentioned of the 27th June 2014, the heading of the Schedule was corrected in the sense to read Danseller Company Limited(C 35006) vs Deputy Curators to represent, the owner, owners,unknown heir, heirs or either of whom, on the 16th July 2008, the said Lena Investments Limited and by decree of the Court above mentioned of the 27th June 2014, the name was to read Danseller Company Limited (C 35006) respectfully pleaded;
That by means of a contract of sale published by Notary Dr. Hugh Grima, on the 6th November 1990, the applicant company acquired the premises known as ‘19, Steps Restaurant, externally marked with official number one hundred and sixty (160) Ta’ Xbiex Coast Road, Gżira, overlying property of third parties and with its airspace as subject to the annual and perpetual groundrent of (EUR 27.96) payable to the unknown owner or owners.
That the applicant company wants to avail itself of the faculty given to it by Article 1501 of the Civil Code Cap. 16 and redeem this groundrent by depositing the sum of EUR 559.20 which represents the said sum of Eur 27.96 Cap.italised at the rate of 5% in order to be freely given to the unknown respondent or respondents after the due receipt according to law is left.
Notify: 1. Director Public Registry,
Merchants Street, Valletta.
2. Deputy Curators,
Courts of Justice, Valletta.
You are therefore ordered to affix an official copy of this bann at the entrance of this Superior Court and to summon whosoever wishes to act as curator to appear before this Registry within six days and by means of a minute to submit a declaration that he wishes so to act.
You are also ordered to inform each one that if he fails to make this declaration within the stipulated time, the Court will proceed to the selection of Curators of Office.
And after so acting or if you ahould encounter any difficulty in the execution of this bann, you are to inform forthwith this Court.
Given by the Civil Court First Hall, above mentioned, with the witness of His Honour the Chief Justice Vincent Degaetano LLD, Doctor of Laws.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1331
1331It is hereby notified that by a decree dated the 22nd August 2014, the Court of Magistrates (Gozo) Voluntary Jurisdiction, ordered the publication of the banns reproduced hereunder for the purposes of section 533(1) of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta.
Whereas by virtue of a decree delivered on the 22nd August 2014 in the records of application number 51/2014 (JVC) by Antonia Sciberras, Friday, 26th September 2014 at 8.45 a.m. in Hall “A” of this Court, has been scheduled for the publication of the secret will of Giovanna Sultana, widow of Kristino Sultana, daughter of the late Francesco Buttigieg u Caterina née Vella, born in Xagħra, Gozo where she used to reside and where she died on the 8th of July 2014 (Identity Card number 34829G), and who died testate. This said publication is to be effected by Notary Paul George Pisani.
Maureen Xuereb
f/Registrar of Courts and Tribunals (Gozo)
Notice 1332
1332By means of a decree given, on the 7th August 2014, by the Court of Appeal, in the records of the Appeal Application, in the names John William Haynes vs Michelle Schembri, Application Number 187/09 JZM, the following publication was orderred for the purpose of service of the respondent Mario Schembri, in terms of Article 187(3) et seq. of Cap. 12.
By means of an Appeal Application, filed, in the Court of Appeal, Application Number 187/09 JZM, in the names John William Haynes (British Passport No. GBR109801279 and his wife Camelia Gladys Haynes née Wincworth (British Passport No GBR050197072) vs Michelle Schembri (ID 6721A) and Mario Schembri (ID 443159M) on the 18th March 2011, the applicant John William Haynes and his wife Camelia Gladys Haynes respectfully pleaded;
A......Preliminary.
That by means of a Sworn application,filed, on the 27th February 2009 they premised:
That by means of a contract in the records of Notary Dr. Joseph Henry Sciriha, of the 8th November 1991, a transfer of a garage underlying property of the applicant in Triq Cervjola, Marsaskala, bordering on the West with the said street, on the South with property of Duminku Agius and on the North with property of Francis Stellini or more correct boundaries, which has in comon the drainage system with the overlying maisonette, tale quale and as shown and inspected, free and unencumbered, was made..
That the acquirer therein indicated is the respondent Michelle Schembri, who is the applicants’ daughter.
That effectively the said Michelle Schembri, in the said contract was appearing as prestanome of the applicants...omissis... and the contract was made in the name of the respondent Michelle Schembri, for the purposes of convenience and with the idea that when the applicants want, the property is duly registered on their name.
That the respondents spouses Schembri were asked to declare that they have no personal claim on the said property and that in fact the applicants are the actual owner of the said garage, but though although the respondent Michelle Schembri accepted, her husband Mario Schembri is refusing, but rather upholds that the property forms part of the comunity of acquests existing between him and his wife.
..............omissis...............
That thus the applicants asked the Court to decide and declare;
i....That the garage above mentioned...omissis.. is the property of the applicants and consequently the spouses Schembri have no share, interest or title on the same property.
ii.Order that a notarial contract be entered in order to reflect what has been decided on the first demand and appoint a Notary to publish the deed.
With costs, against the respondents summoned so that a reference to their evidence is made and saving any further action due to the applicants.
That the defendant Mario Schembri filed a sworn reply where he pleaded that;
1..... That the plaintiff’s demands are unfounded infact and at law since when the contract of transfer of the property subject of this cause was made the applicanst had never entered into any agreement of prestanome or otherwise of representation of the plaintiffs in writing or by mouth.
2. That when the transfer was made the intention of the applicants was that the property subject of this cause forms part of the community of acquests.
3.That the applicant was never aware that he was going to be an accomplice in fraud or tax evasion for the plaintiffs and whether his consent was vitiated by deceit on the part of the defendant Michelle Schembri, he reserves in his favour every action due to him.
4. That the applicant had never called upon the applicants according to the third paragraph of the application but this cause is only a manouvre of the defendant Michelle Schembri to take the property in the eventual separation.
5. Saving further pleas.
That the defendant Michele Schembri agrees with the plaintiff’s demands.
That in virtue of a judgement given by the First Hall Civil Court, in the cause in the names premised, on the 28th February 2011, the Court decided the cause by in the first place rejecting all the plaintiff’s demands in view of the the illicit act as ascertained and pointed out ex officio by the same Court and in the second place once the dispute brought about the rejection of the plaintiff’s demands were not raised by a plea ad hoc by the defendant Mario Schembri, the judicial expenses are not to be taxed between the parties.
That the applicants felt aggrieved by this judgement.
B. Facts in brief.
That the facts in brief are the following.
1.... That the applicants bought the appartment number 83, Triq iċ-Ċervjola, Marsaskala and were also interested to acquire the underlying garage...omissis.. subsequently they agreed on the sale of the same garage.
2. It happened that following the advice of the applicanta’ s Notary the garage was not bought on the name of the applicants but was bought on the name of their daughter Michelle Schembri, who was married to the Maltese defendant Mario Schembri.
3. That the parties contend that on that day the agreement was made their daughter Michelle Schembri was acting as a presta nome.
4. In fact Michelle Schembri appeared on the deed without her husband.
5.................omissis...............
6. It happened that the applicants subsequently asked that the necessary acts be made so that they be registered as the actual owners of the property but Mario Schembri did not accept.
C. Grievance.
That the grievance is clear and manifest.
The Honourable First Court after it examined the proof concluded that;
i..........It is satisfied that there is sufficient proof to show that in reality the defendant Michelle Schembri, was appearing on the contract de quo as presta nome of her plaintiff parents.
ii. She continued to state that thus neither the defendant nor her husband Mario Schembri were directly involved with the acquistion of the title merit of this contract.
The applicants perfectly agree with this conclusion but the Court raised the plea ex officio by concluding that once the applicants did not have what is known as AIP Permit, that is a permit under the Immovable Permit (Acquistion by Non-Residents) Act Cap. 246 of the Laws of Malta, than the relative act was illicit.
The applicants respectfully submit that they should have been given the opportunity to bring forward the proof and make their submissions in this regard.
.................omissis...........
The Applicants did not agee that the lack of AIP Permit renders the deed null. In the first place there should apply the principle of jus superveniens since today AIP Permit is not required and in any case for the sake of argument if such permit is necessary, this can be remedied.They were not given the opportunity to discuss this point.
That if there is an aspect which verges on the illicit it is the plea of the defendant Mario Schembri, who although he knows that the garage in question does not belong to him he is trying to appropriate it and take advantage of the situation.
...............omissis.............
Thus the applicants whilst referring to all the proof produced and reserving to bring forward further proof permitted to them by law including the defendants so that a reference to their evidence be made, respectfully pray that the judgement appealed should be varied as required in this appeal application.
With costs, of both instances against the defendant Mario Schembri.
By means of a Notice of hearing of a cause issued by the Court of Appeal, on the 29th April 2014, the Court, fixed the hearing of the cause in the names John William Haynes and his wife Camelia Gladys Haynes née Wincworth vs Michelle Schembri and Mario Schembri, on Thursday twelfth (12) of June 2014, at 9.30am and by order of the same Court herein mententioned of the 12th June 2014, the hearing of the cause was put off to the 6th October 2014, at 9.00 a.m.
Appellant: 83, Triq iċ-Ċervjola, Maraskala.
Respondents:1..................Omissis.................
2. Mario Schembri,
‘Charles House’ Triq tal-Hriereb,
Msida.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1333
1333IT IS BEING NOTIFIED that by a decree dated 22nd August 2014, given by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Judicature – (Magistrate Dr. Claire L. Stafrace Zammit B.A. LLD); Compilation number 919/2010 after an application filed by Thomas Woods on the 14th March 2014 in the case:
The Police
(Inspector Jonathan Ferris)
Versus:
THOMAS JOHN WOODS, 65 years, pensioner, son of Thomas John and Josephine née Mallia, born in Bedford, England on the 10th April, 1949 and residing at ‘Villino Estero’, Triq Valletta, Mosta and holder of Identity Card number 385387(M);
ACCEEDED to the request of Thomas Woods to revoke the freezer order on his assets.
The publication of this order is being published in terms of Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Cap. 373 of the Laws of Malta and Section 23A (2) and 23B of the Criminal Code, Cap. 9 of the Laws of Malta, following a decree of the 10th January 2011 where the court ordered the attachment in the hands of third parties in a general manner, all monies and other moveable and immoveable property which may be due to or belonging to Thomas Woods.
Dr John Seychell Navarro
Dip.Hlth.Science, Dip Mgmt Stud, Dip.Not.Pub.,LL.B., LLD
Assistant Registrar
Criminal Courts and Criminal Tribunals
Notice 1334
1334By a decree given on 11th August, 2014 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 the 13th November, 2014 by Bank of Valletta plc (C2833), application number 88/13 in the names Bank of Valletta plc vs Dr. Yana Micallef Stafrace et noe and Lin Han being asked that the Court orders the sale by auction of the:
First floor maisonette including its airspace, without a number and named ‘Golden Sun’ before known as ‘Sardinella’. The said maisonette is overlying situated on a garage property of Paul Borg or his successors in title, in Triq il-Pitkali, Attard and subject to annual and perpetual ground rent of thirty four Euro and ninety four cents (€34.94) otherwise free and unencumbered with all its rights and appurtenances The said maisonette has the drain and drainage system in common with the underlying property, and is subject to the right of access in favour of the said tenement for the repair and/or maintenace of the said system.
The said property belongs to the absent WEN TAO HOU and by decree of 11th December, 2012 had been nominated curators MICALLEF STAFRACE YANA DR and PETER PAUL SAMMUT LP and LIN HAN.
Marvic Farrugia
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1335
1335By a decree given on 21st July, 2014 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 the 28th November, 2013 by Bank of Valletta plc (C2833), application number 94/13 in the names Bank of Valletta plc vs Maria Dolores Grech et being asked that the Court orders the sale by auction of the:
The temporary utili dominju for the remaining period of two hundred years (200) that commenced from the twenty first (21) of February of year one thousand nine hundred and sixty (1960) of tenement sive penthouse internally marked eighteen (18) forming part of a block externally numbered fourteen (14) letter ‘A’ (14A) and named ‘Boylan Buildings’ in Triq Għar il-Lembi, Sliema, subject to annual and perpetual ground rent of forty six Euro and fifty nine cents (€46.59) otherwise free and unencumbered.
The said property belongs to Maria Dolores Gerch (I.D.66543M), Maria Carla Drago (I.D. 45969M) u Alexia Camenzuli (I.D.234787M).
Marvic Farrugia
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1336
1336By means of a decree, given by the First Hall Civil Court, on the 31st July 2014, in the erecords of the Sworn application, in the names Ballut Blocks Services Ltd vs F.G.S. Construction Limited, application number 424/14 JZM, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent company, 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 Ballut Blocks Services Limited (C 8360) vs F.G.S. Construction Limited (C 17794) on the 16th May 2014, the applicant company asked this Honourable Court;
1.....To declare and decide that the respondent company is not in a position to pay its debts in terms of Article 214(2) (a) (ii) of Cap. 386 of the Laws of Malta and uphold the other demands in the application amongst which the dissolution and winding up of the respondent company.
With costs and saving any further action due to the applicant company inter alia in terms of Articles 303, 315 and 316 of the Companies Act.
Applicant: Ballut Blocks, Wied Filep l/o, Naxxar.
Services: F.G.S. Construction Limited, Garage No 2, Triq Għexierem, Rabat RBT 03.
The Sworn Application in the names Ballut Blocks Services Ltd vs F.G.S. Construction Limited, application number 424/14 JZM, has been put off for hearing to the 16th October 2014, at 9.00 a.m.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1337
1337IT IS BEING NOTIFIED that by a decree dated 2nd August 2014 given by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Judicature – (Magistrate Dr Neville Camilleri B.A. LL.D., MA (Fin.Serv.)) Compilation number 337/2014 in the case:
The Police
(Inspector Herman Mula)
Versus:
KEVIN SPITERI, 32 years, unemployed, son of Salvatore and Maria Elena née Gatt, born in Pietà on the 11th July 1982 and residing at Flat 5A JMR Court, Manoel De Vilhena Street, Gzira and holder of Maltese Identity Card bearing number 0534982 (M);
ORDERED the attachment in the hands of third parties in general all monies and other movable property due or pertaining or belonging to Kevin Spiteri and prohibits the said accused from transferring or otherwise disposing of any movable or immovable property and this according to Article 22A of Dangerous Drugs Ordinance Chapter 101 of the Laws of Malta, of Article 5 (1) (a) (b) and 5(1) and 5(2) of the Money Laundering Act, Chapter 373 of the Laws of Malta and of Article 23A, of the Criminal Code Cap. 9 of the Laws of Malta.
Dr John Seychell Navarro
Dip.Hlth.Science, Dip Mgmt Stud, Dip.Not.Pub.,LL.B., LL.D
Assistant Registrar
Criminal Courts and Criminal Tribunals
Notice 1338
1338By means of a decree given, on the 7th August 2014, by the Court of Appeal, in the records of the Appeal Application, in the names Rachelle Bach Sakka Fiorini vs Mohammed Bach Sakka, Application number 455/07, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent, 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 names Rachelle Bach Sakka Fiorini (ID 512976M) vs Mohammed Bach Sakka (ID 23051A) Decided 28th February 2013, the applicant Mohammed Bach Sakka (ID 23051A) respectfully pleaded:
That by means of a sworn application which the plaintiff filed on the sixteenth (16) of April 2007, the respondent plaintiff whilst premising:
That the parties were married on the twelfth (12) of December 2005 and this as results from the marriage certificate of the parties.
That the parties had two children which are still minors;
That the conjugal life between the parties is no longer possible.
That the applicant asked and obtained the necessary authorisation to proceed in this instance, that there is no room for riconciliation and thus this lawsuit had to be made.
Thus for the reasons premised the plaintiff asked the defendant to state why this Honourable Court should not;
1.......Pronounce the personal separation between the parties.
2. Entrust the applicant with the care and custody of the minors.
3. Condemn the respondent to pay the applicant for herself and the minor children the adequate maintenance due according to law.
4................omissis...............
5.................omissis................
6.....................omissis................
7. Order the respondent to give back to the respondent the property and her paraphernal and dotal property and to pay all those debts he incurred or which were incurred on his belhalf and which had to be paid by the applicant his wife.
With costs against the respondent summoned ao that a reference to her evidence be made. That the defendant appellant pleaded by means of his Note of Pleas and the counter-claim, presented on Wednesday (4) of April 2008,
That the applicant agrees that there be pronounced the personal separation between the parties but this for reasons solely imputable to the plaintiff since she is guilty of abandonment, excesses, ...omissis... with the consequence that life together is no longer possible because the marriage irretrievably broke down.
a).....That thus the first demand is unfounded in fact and at law.
b) That the second demand regarding the care and custody of the two minor children is to be rejected.
c) That the applicant considers that the behaviour of his wife was such that she forfeited her right to be paid maintenance for her.
d)...........omissis...............
e)...........omissis...............
f..............omissis..................
g) That the applicant declares that he has no property or praphernal or dotal credits belonging to the plaintiff.
h) That the applicant on his part did all he could to try and save the marriage.
i) Saving other pleas permitted by law.
That the defendant availed himself of the sworn application, filed against him by the plaintiff and duly notified to him.
Whereas conjugal life between the parties is no longer possible due, to cruelty, threats,excesses and grievous insults, on the part of the plaintiff.
The same plainbtiff is to state why this Honourable Court should not;
1.Declare and pronounce the personal separation between the parties.
2, Authorise the defendant to live separately from the plaintiff his wife.
3.......omissis....................
4..........omissis.............
5..............omissis.....................
6. Dissolve and terminate the community of acquests existing between the parties.
7. Condemn the plaintiff to deliver to the applicant defendant all his paraphernal property, which shall be detailed during the course of the proceedings.
That the plaintiff brought forward her defence to the counter claim demands in the following manner:
1...... That the applicant agrees that there should be pronounced the personal separation between the parties.
2. That as regards the second demand of the respondent so that he be authorised to live separately from his wife, it is stated that effectively the respondent has done this for long time.
3. That as regards the third demand the care and custody of the minor shoud be entrusted exclusively to the applicant and this in the supreme interest of the minor.
4. That as regards the fourth demand the applicant has for along time alone together with her parents maintained her minor children.
5..................omissis.............
6.....................omissis............
7. That as regards the seventh demand the applicant never opposed to deliver the few paraphernal objects of the respondent in her possession in favour of the respondent.
That by means of an application dated nineteenth (19) of June 2012, the plaintiff asked that the demand for separation be considered as a demand for divorce. This demand duly notified to the respondent was not opposed.
That by means of a judgement given on the twenty eight (28) of February 2013, the Honourable Civil Court ( Family Section) decided so;
For these reasons this Court is disposing of the cause in the following manner. as reagrds the sworn application saving that it rejects the pleas of the defendant;
1.......Upholds the first demand as amended by the partial judgement given today in the same names and declare the divorce between the parties and this in terms of Article 66A of Cap 16 of the Laws of Malta.
2. Uphold the second demand and grant the care and custody of the two minor children to the plaintiffs.
3..............omissis...........
4. Uphold the fourth demand and establish the 1st January 2006, as the date when the defendant rendered himself guilty for the breakdown of the marriage.
5. Uphold the fifth demand, dissolve the community of acquests between the parties and assign to the plaintiff any share that the defendant has in the vehicle of the type Daihatsu Charade registration number CAB219.
6..............omissis.........
7................omissis..........
As regards the counter –claim and for the reasons brought forward above reject all the demands brought in counter-claim.
With all costs against the defendant.
That the defendant appellant felt aggrieved by the first Head in so far as the declaration by the Court of First Instance, that the defendant is solely responsible for the breakdown of the marriage betwewen the parties,the second Head...omissis... and is thus availing himself of the provisions of Article 226 of Cap 12 of the Laws of Malta and is filing this humble appeal.
That the grievances are clear and manifest and consist in the following.
The First Grievance- Declaration of guilt of the defendant for the breakdown of marriage between the parties.
That it is humbvly submitted that the Court of First Instance, made a wrong evaluation of the proof produced and was mistaken in its conclusions when it found the defendant appellant solely guilty for the breakdown of the marriage with his wife the respondent plaintiff.
That it is well established in case-law that the Court of Appeal, as a Court of Revision does not easily disturb the discretion of the Court of First Instance, as regards the evaluation of proof easily except where there result grievous and serious motives.
..............omissis..........
That it is submitted that in the present case it can be stated that the appreciation of proof by the Court of First Instance, was so mistaken and/or that there exists a grievous incosistency which created an injustice as regards the defendant appellant.
That the Court of First Instance relied on the evidence produced by the plaintiff particularly the evidence of the same plaintiff which was given by affidavit dated 13th June 2008.
................omissis..............
That in order to avoid repetion despite that various reports to the police were made and despite all the allegations brought forward against the defendant therewas never presented any Court judgement which found the defendant guilty of domestic violence against his wife the respondent.
The second Grievance-Access to his Minor Children.
That the defendant appellant felt aggrieved also as regards the modality and frequency of access to his children. With the due respect the appellant is not of the opinion that it is in the best interest of the minor to see their father only for two hours on Tuesday, although the defendant appellant does not find objection that such access be held in the edifice of the Appoġġ Agency.
..................omissis..........
The defendant appellant points out that it will be opportune that the access be revised and be increased at least to three times a week.
The Third Grievance –The maintenance for the respondent plaintiff.
That the defendant appellant felt aggrieved also whereby he was ordered to pay the sum of two hundred and fifty Ewro (€250) monthly as maintenance for his wife the respondent plaintiff. That with the due respect there is no room that maintenance is paid to the respondent plaintiff and in any case the amount is excessive and this because she works and always worked for these last years.
The Fourth Grievance-Declaration of further guilt of the Defendant.
That as already submitted the Court of First Instance was not correct when it found the defendant guilty on the basis of partial proof filed by the respondent..omissis... That the Court of First Instance, made a wrong appreciation of the proof brought forward and in particular the discretion exercised by the Court of First Instance, which applied in its entirety the provisions of Articles 48 to 53 as a consequence of the guilt of the defendant appellant, under Article 40 of Cap 16 of the Laws of Malta.
The fifth Grievance –Payment of the Loan Account.
That the Court of First Instance,in the dissolution of thecommunity of acquests between the respondent plaintiff and the defendant appellant pronounced itself as regards the loan in the sum of Euros 11, 645 and ordered that the defendant appellant pay the said sum with legal interest, from the 21st March 2006, which sum reflects the loan given to the plaintiff from the Bank of Valletta plc.
......................omissis................
That the impression which the plaintiff gives is that this loan was paid by her alone without any contribution on the part of the defendant appellant, this does not reflect the truth.
Part of the judgement not Appealed.
That the defendant shall not appeal from the fifth and sixth demands since although he is appealing from the condemnation of guilt against him for the breakdown of the marriage he does not object that the assets mentioned in the fifth and sixth demand be apportioned as decided by the Court of First Instance.
Demands.
Thus the defendant whilst referring to the proof produced and that which can be produced according to law at this stage of Appeal humbly prays that this Honourable Court of Appeal, varies the judgement appealed given by the Civil Court ( Family Section)of the twenty eight of February 2013, in the names Rachelle Bach Sakka Fiorini vs Mohammed Back Sakka, as demanded in this application.
With costs, of both instances against the respondent plaintiff.
Notify: Rachelle Bach Sakka Fiorini, 23/6, Phoenix Flats, Triq Edgar Ferro, Pietà.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1339
1339By means of a Note, filed, in the First Hall Civil Court, on the 26th August 2014, by Notary Ian Spiteri, Brian Gatt, company director son of Victor and Rose née Mifsud, born in Ħ’Attard and residing in High Ridge, Madliema, limits of Swieqi ID 183371(M) and his wife Sharon Jane Gatt, house wife, ID 284271(M) respectively brought the following document to be published in terms of Article 9 Cap.. 13 of the Laws of Malta.
By means of a contract, in the records of Notary Ian Spiteri, of the 20th August 2014, Brian Gatt, company director, son of Victor and Rose née Mifsud, born in Ħ’ Attard and residing in High Ridge, Madliena, limits of Swieqi, ID 183371(M) and his wife Sharon Jane Gatt, housewife, daughter of the late Laurence sive Lawrence Borg and Jane née Gauci, born in Sliema and residing in High Ridge, Madliena, limits of Swieqi, ID 284271(M) emancipated for all intents and purposes of law, their daughter Petra Gatt, student and unmarried, born in Santa Venera and residing in High Ridge, Madliena, limits of Swieqi, ID 0205298(M) and this in conformity with and this in conformity with Article number nine (9) of the Commercial Code of the Laws of Malta.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD
For the Registrar, Civil Court and Tribunals.
Notice 1340
1340It is hereby notified that by a decree dated the 31st July 2014, the Court of Magistrates (Gozo) Superior Jurisdiction, General Section, ordered the publication of the extract reproduced hereunder for the purpose of service in terms of sections 187(3) and 931(3) of the Code of Organization and Civil Procedure.
Whereas by a decree dated the 31st July 2014 by this Court upon an application by Colin Edkins and of Corinne Edkins (Identity card number 10254(A) and 10253(A) respectively), whereby it was ordered that deputy curators be nominated in terms of law to represent the unknown persons who are entitled to receive the herein mentioned ground rent, and this in the records of schedule of deposit and concurrent redemption of ground rent bearing number 147/2014 in names “Advocate Dr Damian Bigeni nomine versus deputy curators to represent the unknown persons who are entitled to receive the herein mentioned ground rent,” filed on the 29th July 2014 in the Court of Magistrates (Gozo) Superior Jurisdiction, General Section, as well as in all the other related and subsequent acts.
This schedule of deposit relates to the redemption of ground rent imposed on the premises, without an official number but today denominated as “Ta’ Corlina”, in Maxarbija Street (previously known as an alley leading to Lighthouse Street), Għasri Gozo, bounded on the west by property of Carmelo Tabone’s property or his successors in title; south by property of Joseph Zammit or his successors in title; and north by the said street; which property is marked in red on the plan attached to the schedule of deposit. This property is subject to the annual and perpetual ground rent of six Euro cents (€0.06c).
Whoever is interested to be nominated as a curator is hereby called upon to call at this Registry within six (6) days and make known their interest through a declaratory note to accept such an assignment and in default, this court will proceed to nominate an official curator.
Issued by the aforementioned Court of Magistrates (Gozo) Superior Jurisdiction, General Section under the signature of Dr Paul Coppini, a Magistrate of the said Court.
Superior Jurisdiction, General Section
Anthony Mizzi
For the Registrar,
Gozo Courts and Tribunals
Bann for Curators
1341Republic of Malta
To The Marshall of the Court.
By means of a decree by this Court, on the 28th August 2014, following a request of United Automobile Limited, it was ordered that deputy curators be chosen to represent the respondent who is deceased in the sworn application 718/14 AE, in the names United Automobile Limited vs Bonavia Stores Limited, and in the relative and subsequents acts.
By means of an Application, filed, in the First Hall Civil Court, in the names United Automobile Limited (C 5845) v Bonavia Stores Limited (C 10409) in terms of Article 929(b) of Cap. 12 on the 13th August 2014, the applicant company United Automobile Limited, asked this Honourable Court, to appoint a curator to appear for the respondent Joseph Bonavia, Director of the defendant company who is deceased and this in terms of Article 929(b) of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta and by means of an another, Sworn Application, number 718/14 AE, in the same names above United Automobile Limited (C 5845) vs Bonavia Stores Limited (C 10409) filed in the First Hall Civil Court, on the 13th August 2014, the applicant company United Automobile Limited, asked the defendant to state why this Honourable Court should not saving any necessary declaration;
1.... Declare that since the defendant did not pay all the balance and due to the nature of the agreement the vehicle is to be registered in the name of the applicant company and thus in view of the first demand order the transfer by means of the appointment of curators and uphold the other demands in the application so that the transfer be made in the name of the applicant company.
List of Witnesses.
List of Documents.
You are therefore ordered to affix an official copy of this bann at the entrance of this Superior Court and to summon whosoever wishes to act as curator to appear before this Registry within six days and by means of a minute to submit a declaration that he wishes so to act.
You are also ordered to inform each one that if he fails to make this declaration within the stipulated time, the Court will proceed to the selection of Curators of Office.
And after so acting or if you should encounter any difficulty in the execution of this bann, you are to inform forthwith this Court.
Given by the Civil Court First Hall,above mentioned,
with the witness of the Hon. Mr. Justice Giannino Caruana Demajo LLD, Doctor of Laws.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals.
Notice 1342
1342By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal of the 25th June 2014, 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).
By means of a Notice of a sitting issued by the Small Claims Tribunal the cause Notice Number 262/14VG2. in the names Go plc vs Elizabeth Willis was set down again for hearing on the 8th October 2014 at 1.00 p.m. before the Adjudicator Dr Vincent Galea.
For the purpose of service: Elizabeth Willis – Ċarvedut Court, Flat 11, Triq ir-Rattan, Mellieħa.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1343
1343By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal of 12th February 2014, 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).
Malcolm Grech (KI 179473M) of 144, Parilja Street, Santa Venera,filed a Claim on the 11th February 2014 whereby he asked the Tribunal to condemn Fabio Laurie Cauchi (ID 67191M)ta’ Apartment 3, Brega Flats, Triq il-Merżuq, Birzebbuġa, to pay the plaintiff company the sum of €1,242.07 which amount is due to the plaintiff.
With costs and legal interests.
The case (Claim Number 89/14VG2) is put off on the 17th September 2014 at 1.00 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1344
1344By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal of 9th July 2014, 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 Triq Fra Diego, Marsa, MRS 1501, filed a Claim on the 4th June 2014 whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Fabian Sciriha (ID 266885M)of Antonia, Flat 3, Triq Nerik Mizzi, Mosta,to pay the plaintiff company the sum of €3400.78 which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With costs and interests.
The case (Claim Number 371/14GB) is put off on the 19th September 2014 at 12.30 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals.
Notice 1345
1345By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal of 5th May 2014, 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 Triq Fra Diego, Marsa, MRS 1501, filed a Claim on the 3rd March 2014 whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Diego Grixti (ID 590685M)of 31, Triq Sant’Anna, Valletta,to pay the plaintiff company the sum of €1,235.05 which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With costs and interests.
The case (Claim Number 136/14NHV) is put off on the 22nd September 2014 at 12.05 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals.
Notice 1346
1346By decree given by the CIVIL COURT, FIRST HALL on the 3rd of June 2014, on the application of HSBC BANK MALTA PLC, Thursday, 25th September, 2014 at half past ten in the morning (10.30 a.m.) for the SALE BY AUCTION, to be held on THE FIRST FLOOR, COURTS OF JUSTICE, REPUBLIC STREET, VALLETTA of the following property.
Store numbered ninety- five (95) build on a plot numbered eighteen (18) in Triq Ċensu Busuttil, Iklin which property gives access to another plot numbered thirteen (13) in Triq Ġużè Muscat Azzopardi, Iklin, with two accesses from the same road, one of them numbered four (4), which properties are used as one store, free and unencumbered valued at five hundred and twenty thousand Euros (€520,000)
The said tenement is the property of M.G.S. LIMITED.
N.B. The said tenement will be sold as described in the Judicial Sales Act 73/13
Rudolph Marmarà
For Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1347
1347By a decree given on 11th August, 2014 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 July, 2014, on the application of BANK OF VALLETTA PLC (C2833), Tuesday, 30th September, 2014 at half past ten in the morning (10:30 a.m.), has been fixed for the SALE BY AUCTION, to be held in THE FIRST FLOOR OF THESE COURT OF JUSTICE, REPUBLIC STREET, VALLETTA of the following property.
Maisonette on the first floor, with its own airspace, without number and name ‘Golden Sun’, Triq il-Pitkali, Attard, subject to annual and perpetual ground rent of thirty four euro and ninety four cents (€34.94), otherwise free and unencumbered with all its right and appurtances. The said maisonette has the drains and drainage system common with underlying property, right access to the underlying property for maintance and repair, valued at two hunderd and ten thousand euro (€210,000).
The said tenement is the property of the absent WEN TAO HOU and by decree of 11th December, 2012 had been nominated curators MICALLEF STAFRACE YANA DR and PETER PAUL SAMMUT LP and LIN HAN.
N.B. The said tenement will be sold as described in the acts of the file number 88/2013.
Marvic Farrugia
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1348
1348IT IS hereby notified that by virtue of a decree of the 11th June 2014, the Small Claims Tribunal (Gozo) ordered the publication of the following notice for the purposes of service in terms of section 187(3) of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta in respect of defendant Wade Hopewell of Flat 5, 64A, Marsalforn Street, Xagħra, Gozo.
The plantiff company Mobisle Communications Limited (C24655) filed a claim in the Small Claims Tribunal (Gozo) – Case Number 11/2014 in the names of “Mobisle Communications Limited vs Hopewell Wade” – on the 1st April 2014, wherein it requested the Tribunal to condemn the defendant to pay it the amount of €443.77 for payment in connection with mobile phone service and ancillary legal expenses. With costs and interest.
The case is differed to the 8th October 2014 at 11.30 a.m.
Silvana Grech
D/Registrar