Go Back
Court Notices published in Govt. Gazette No. 19,334 of 28 October 2014
01/01/2014
Notice 1666
1666By means of a decree of the 16th October, 2014, of the Civil Court First Hall, in the records of judicial letter number 3122/14, in the names MIB Insurance Agency Limited vs Captain Morgan Cruises Limited pro et noe, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of effecting service on the respondent George Grechin terms of Article 187 (3) of Cap. 12.
In the First Hall of the Civil Court
...............
To: 1. Captain Morgan Cruises Limited and Captain Morgan Leisure Limited, in their own capacity, and as owners and on behalf of the vessel MV Atlantis.
2.Pleasure & Leisure Limited, in their own capacity, and as owners and on behalf of M/V Hakuna Matata.
3.George Grech (ID 18950M) in his own capacity, and as owner and on behalf of the vessel M/V Romantika, all of Dolomiti Court, Flat 11, Triq Aristarku, San Pawl il-Baħar.
4.Joanathan Grech in his own capacity, and as owner and on behalf of the vessel M/V Laguna.
5. Reuben Mifsud as liquidator for and on behalf of Surfing Sapphire Limited, and owner of the vessel M/V Imbolo, and also for and on behalf of the same vessel.
6. Surfing Sapphire Ltd (C 46920) in its own capacity, and as owner and for on behalf of the vessel M/V Imbolo.
By the present, MIB Insurance Agency Limited (C 42111), of 53 Abate Rigord Street, Ta’ Xbiex, as agents for and on behalf of the foreign insurance Amlin Syndicate 200, that are the insurers syndicates with Lloyds and also MV Helena G and the company Lady Helen Limited (C 46807) refer you to the accident which occured in Blue Lagoon, Kemmuna, on the 13th October, 2012 at about 3.00 p.m.
In this accident, the vessel MV Helena G, property of the Lady Helena Limited suffered damages because of negligence, imprudence and lack of observation of the rules of sea on all or some of you.
By this present, you are being solicited so that within two days you come forward for the liquidation and payment of damages amounting to approximately €9,844.75 suffered by the interpellant MV Helena G, by the interpellant Lady Helena Limited and by the interpellant MIB Insurance Agency Limited noe that paid the damages suffered by the firm which was insured with it, and as such it became subrogated in the rights of the same firm.
If you fail to comply, the interpellants will proceed further against you or against anyone of you without further notice.
With due reservation for further damages that may result, and also damages that may be claimed by third parties, which damages would also be the result of your failure or the failure of any one of you.
So much for your own guidance.With costs and interests.
This letter is also required in terms of Article 2128 of the Civil Code.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1667
1667By means of a decree of the 1st October, 2014, of the Civil Court First Hall, in the records of judicial letter number 2882/14, in the names John Farrugia vs Raymond Buhagiar et,the following publication was ordered for the purpose of effecting service on the respondents in terms of Article 187 (3) et. seq. of Cap. 12.
In the First Hall of the Civil Court
...............
To: (1)Raymond Buhagiar (ID 13425M), of 16/17, Triq is-Siġġiewi, Żebbuġ
(2)Maray & Grant Limited (C 39880), of 16/17, Triq is-Siġġiewi, Żebbuġ.
By the present, John Farrugia (ID 683755M), of Ramol, Nigret Road, Żurrieq, officially solicits you so that within one week from today, together and in solidum (or any one of you), you pay the amount of €220,814.61 representing the balance from a greater amount of loans, interest and other payments made to you, and which you undertook to pay back to the applicant.
If you fail to pay withing the stipulated time frame, the applicant will proceed against you according to law without any further notice.
So much for your own guidance.
With costs and interest.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1668
1668By means of a decree given on the 20th October, 2014, by the Court of Appeal, in the records of theAppeal (Civil), in the names Director of the Department of Standards forSocial Welfare vs Lara Maria Merelevede née Borg St John, Appeal number 396/12, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent Lara Maria Merlevede née Borg St John in terms of Article 187 (3) et. seq. of Cap. 12.
By means of an Application for a New Trial filed in the Court of Appeal, in the records of the Appeal number 396/12, the Director of the Department of Standards for Social Welfare vs Lara Maria Merlevede née Borg St John, on the 22nd April, 2014, the applicant Director of the Department of Standards for Social Welfare respectfully pleaded:
That by means of a General application number 576/2012, the respondent asked the Honourable Civil Court (Family Section) so that as provided in Article 48 of the Council Regulation (CE) No. 2201/2003, it makes the necessary arrangements for the organisation and exercising of the rights of access by the father Etienne Pierre Merlevede to his children Chloe and Gabriel Merlevede as given by the judgement of the Court of Appeal in Douai, France, dated 19th April, 2012.
...........omissis...........
That by means of a judgement given, on the 8th August 2014, the Honourable Civil Court (Family Section) upheld the demand of the respondent, and ordered that the practical arrangements be made so that the father shall have access to the two minors in Malta or France as ordered by the said French Court.
That by means of an Appeal Application filed on the 9th August, 2013, the respondent asked this Honourable Court to cancel and revoke the judgement given by the Civil Court (Family Section), on the 8th August, 2003.
That in virtue of a judgement of the 31st January, 2014, this Honourable Court declared that the foreign judgement is a judgement which is executable as if it were a Maltese judgement, and there cannot be made a revision of the jurisdiction of the foreign Court (Article 24), and nor can the judgement be reviewed as regards its substance (Article 26).
...........omissis...........
That following an application presented on the 7th February, 2014, by the respondent Lara Maria Merlevede according to her in terms of Article 825 of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta, this Honourable Court in virtue of its decree dated 4th March, 2014, pointed out that after the judgement is delivered it is not permissible that changes be made except how and where permitted by law.
...........omissis...........
That in virtue of this application, the applicant is humbly asking that this Honourable Court order the cancellation of this judgement of the 31st January, 2014, so that a new trial be held for the coming reasons:
1. That the judgement was given on something not entered in the demands on the basis of Article 811 (f) of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta.
2. That in virtue of the judgement more was given than asked for on the basis of Article 811 (g) of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta.
3. That in the judgement there are contradictory dispositions on the basis of Article 811 (i) of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta.
4. That the judgement contains a wrong application of the law on the basis of Article 811 (e) of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta.
That the appellant Director respectfully submits that there is room for the cancellation of the judgement for the above reasons in view of the following:
1. That the judgement was given on something not entered in the demands (extra petita) on the basis of Article 811 (f) of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta.
That as regards this ground jurisprudence constantly upheldthat it is a known principle that a Civil Court should in the awarding of a judgement stick rigourously within the limits of the contestation.
...........omissis...........
That when one applies this principle, it clearly emerges that what was given in the judgement dated 31st January, 2014, was outside that demanded in the general applicationnumber 576/2012 of the appellant Director.
That truly whilst the appellant Director asked so that the Civil Court (Family Section) provides according to Article 48 of the Council Regulation number 2201/2003, those practical arrangements for the organisation of the exercise of the rights of access by the father Etienne Pierre Merlvede to his children Chloe and Gabriel Merlevede as given by the judgement of the Court of Appeal, of Douai, France, dated 19th April, 2012, the Honourable Court of Appeal decided to assume the role of a Court of Revision of the Court of Appeal of Douai, France, when it did not have the power to do this, and changed the rights of access which this French Court ordered for the father when it should not have done this.
i. That the father or his representative has with every right of access to deposit under the Authority of the Court in Malta, the sum of €10,000 which can be withdrawn by the fatherin case the children come back to Malta as scheduled, and can be withdrawn by the mother in case the children are not returned as scheduled.
ii ...........omissis...........
e ...........omissis...........
f ...........omissis...........
That in virtue of the constant jurisprudence above mentioned, it is serenly stated that none of these disputes relate to matters of public order which this Honourable Court was bound to raise ex officio,and once there are no disputes ofpublic order, this Honourable Court should not have imposed them.
But rather this Honourable Court in virtue of this judgement went against its obligation to automatically enforce the judgement given by the Honourable Court of Appeal of Douai, France, on the 19th April, 2012, which judgement satisfies the requisites stipulated under Article 41 of the said Council Regulation (CE) number 2201/2003.
...........omissis...........
That infact, the applicant’s demand by means of the general application was solely made for this purpose and certainly not only so that this Honourable Court vary the time and impinge on the rights of access given by the Honourable Court of Appeal of Douai, France.
...........omissis...........
That in the light of that above premised, it clearly emerges that the judgement given by this Honourable Court does not conformwith the demand brought before it, but it is based on different grounds than those propsed by the appellant in the general application he presented before the Civil Court (Family Section).
2. That in virtue of the judgement more was given than that demanded (ultra petita) on the basis of Article 811 (g) of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta.
That as regards this ground jurisprudence constantly upheld ‘That there shall recur the defect of ultra petita when the Court which pronounced itself exceeded the limits of the claims or pleas raised by the parties or a matter which is extraneous to the object of the proceedings which cannot also be raised ex officio’.
...........omissis...........
‘That when the grounds of ultra petita is considered, it is necessarythat one sees what has been asked, the criterion isthat the demand in a cause is deduced from that mentioned in the act in virtue of which the cause is instituted’.
That in application of this doctrine, it clearly emerges that this Honourable Court was also in default in being ultra petita when it pronounced itself beyond the limits of the claimsbrought forward by not limiting itself to provide on the practical arrangements for the organisation and exercise of the rights of access by the father given by means of the French judgement as demanded in the original application presented by the applicant appellant, and doubted whether the children could not be returned to their mother.
...........omissis...........
That by this, the Honourable Court went against the basic principal that a Court has to provide on the legal aspects it has before it, and instead exceeded that demanded and expected from it when it based its decision on its thinking.
That this Honourable Court did not have the power to obstruct the automatic enforcement of the French judgement, on this thinking it was prohibitedto oppose its executionmuch less revoke it ...omissis... or carry out any judicial investigation regarding the rights of access given by means of the judgement of the Court of Appeal of Douai, in France.
...........omissis...........
That above all, this Honourable Court should pronounce itself within the limits of what the legislator imposed on itby respecting the automatic enforcibility of this French judgement in terms of Article 41 of the Council Regulation (CE) No 2201/2003.
...........omissis...........
That in its judgement, this Honourable Court did not do this. It pronounced itself on something which is not entered in the demand, and this not not only fall within the terms of Article 811(f), but since it exceeded that demanded it also falls within the terms of Article 811 (g) of the said Article.
Thus, the applicant appellant submits that there subsist only the elements which constitute the basis for the revocation of the judgement given by this Honourable Court on the 31st January, 2014 and for a new trial of the appealed mentioned also in terms of Article 811 (g) of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta.
3. That in the judgement, there are contradictory dispositions on the basis of Article 811 (i) of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta.
According to constant jurisprudence ‘the sub-article (1) ofArticle 811 provides for a new hearing if in the judgement there are contradictory dispositions’.
That this Honourable Court in the judgement in question disposed of the appeal in the following manner:
Thus, for the reasons premises disposes of the appeal filed by the respondent Lara Maria Merlevede née Borg St John by upholding the same only in part and reforms the judgement of the First Court by ordering with effect from the 2014to 2017 ...omissis... and the years 2018 forward, the access to the father shall be as providedby the Court of First Instance in addition to that provided by this Court in paragraph 23 of this judgement.
That in the light of this doctrine and a look at the dispositions of the judgement in examination, it is evident that this Honourable Court disposed of this judgement in a completely contradictory manner. For these reasonsdifferently from that providedby this Honourable Court, the Honourable Court of First Instance did not provide anything on the access but only on the practical arrangements for the organisation of the exercise of the rights of access as given by the Court of Appeal of Douai, in France.
...........omissis...........
That in the light of the legal principle listed in Article 41 Council Regulation (CE) number 2201/2003, that such a judgement is acknowledged and automatically enforcible, the Court of First Instance justly provided on the passage of time for access midway during these holidays as contemplatedby the French Court for the years 2013, 2014 and the following years.
...........omissis...........
That in its judgement, the Honourable First Court faithfully abidedwith that provided by the Court of Appeal in Douai, France, and in no moment did it go against that contemplated in Article 41 of paragraph 1 of the said regulation.
That thus, this Honourable Court at the same time provides that the access of the father shall be as provided by the Court of First Instance that is practical arrangements for the organisation of the exercise of the rights of access as given by the French Court but shall be of one week during the Christmas holidays and twenty days in the summer holidays, that is an absolute change and imposition on the rights of access ordered by the French judgement, which judgement is to be automatically acknowledged and enforcible is so contradictory that without any doubt it stultifies the decision of this Court and makes it pro tanto inexecutable both in Malta and much more in France.
...........omissis...........
That there is no doubt that the judgement given by this Honourable Court on the 31st January, 2014, is also defective both from this aspect, and thus there is room for the revocation and a new trial of the appeal mentioned in terms of Article 811 (i) of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta.
4. That the judgement contains a wrong application of the law on the basis of Article 811 (e) of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta.
On this ground it is stated:
...........omissis...........
That this applied in the judgement in question one is to immediately declare that this should also be cancelled regarding that provided in Article 811 (e) of Cap. 12 because it is evident that this Honourable Court did not apply in it the correct law and namely Article 48 of the Council Regulation (CE) No. 2201/2003 nothwithstanding thatthis was referred to by the applicant appellant in the original application itself.
That this Honourable Court does not refer anywhere to this Article. Instead, this Court makes reference to Article 24 and 26, which application is without doubt bad because these Articles refer to judgements which are not automatically enforcible.
...........omissis...........
That once the French judgement is to automatically aknowledged and enforced, this Honourable Court doesnothave the right but rather it is prohibited from opposing its execution much more revoke it, vary it, ignore it or carry out any judicial investigation.
That it means thus that this Honourable Court made a manifest and express violation, and did not apply the just or rather correct law that is Article 48.
...........omissis...........
Thus, the applicant appellant whilst referring to the records of the proceedings and reserving to bring forward all the proof permitted by law humbly asks this Honourable Court:
1. To rescind and cancel the judgement of this Honourable Court of the 31st January, 2014, in the names Director of the Department of Standards for Social Welfare vs Lara Maria Merlevede née Borg St John(Appeal Civil number 396/2012/1), and this because it is vitiated for the reasons premised in terms of Articles 811 (f) (g) (i) and (e) of Cap. 12.
Consequently order the new trial of the cause according to law.
With costs and the respondents are summoned so that a reference to their evidence be made.
Whereas the written procedures in the cause before the Court of Appeal, in the names, the Director of the Departments for Standards for Social Welfare vs Lara Maria Merlevede née Borg St John, the Court fixed the hearing of the cause on Tuesday, seventh (7th) of October, 2014, at 9.30 a.m., and deferred for the 11th November, 2014, at 9.30 a.m.
Applicant: Attorney General, The Palace, Valletta.
Respondent: Lara Maria Merlevede née Borg St John, 283A, Main Street, Balzan.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1669
1669B’digriet tat-Tribunal għal Talbiet Żgħar, tas-27 ta’ Marzu, 2014, ġiet ordnata l-pubblikazzjoni tal-estratt li jidher hawn taħt għall-finijiet ta’ notifika skont l-Artikolu 187 (3)tal-Kodiċi ta’ Organizzazzjoni u Proċedura Ċivili (Kap. 12).
Go plc (C 22334), ta’ Triq Fra Diego, Marsa MRS 1501, ippreżentaw Talba, fis-27 ta’ Jannar, 2014, fejn talbu lit-Tribunal sabiex jikkundanna lil Christian James Gatt (KI 568774M), għan-nom u in rappreżentanza tas-soċjetà C Services Limited (C 44115),ta’ Bramble Cottage, Daħlet il-Ġibjun, Naxxar, sabiex iħallas lis-soċjetà attriċi s-somma ta’ €301.57, liema ammont huwa dovut lis-soċjetà attriċi.
Bl-ispejjeż u bl-imgħaxijiet.
Il-kawża (Avviż Numru 51/14YMS) hija differita għat-12 ta’ Novembru, 2014 fin-12.30 p.m.
Reġistru tal-Qorti tal-Maġistrati (Malta), illum 24 ta’ Ottubru, 2014.
Alexandra Debattista
Għar-Reġistratur Qrati Ċivili u Tribunali
Notice 1670
1670B’digriet tat-Tribunal għal Talbiet Żgħar, tat-28 ta’ Awwissu, 2014, ġiet ordnata l-pubblikazzjoni tal-estratt li jidher hawn taħt għall-finijiet ta’ notifika skont l-Artikolu 187 (3)tal-Kodiċi ta’ Organizzazzjoni u Proċedura Ċivili (Kap. 12).
Go plc (C 22334), ta’ Triq Fra Diego, Marsa MRS 1501, ippreżentaw Talba, fl-20 ta’ Awwissu, 2014, fejn talbu lit-Tribunal sabiex jikkundanna lil Davies Alexander Marc (KI 75387A), ta’ Notre Reve, Flat 1, Triq Salvu Psaila, Żurrieq,sabiex iħallas lis-soċjetà attriċi s-somma ta’ €319.32, liema ammont huwa dovut lis-soċjetà attriċi.
Bl-ispejjeż u bl-imgħaxijiet legali.
Il-kawża (Avviż Numru 590/14VG2) hija differita għat-12 ta’ Novembru, 2014 fis-1.00 p.m.
Reġistru tal-Qorti tal-Maġistrati (Malta), illum 24 ta’ Ottubru, 2014.
Alexandra Debattista
Għar-Reġistratur Qrati Ċivili u Tribunali
Notice 1671
1671B’digriet tat-Tribunal għal Talbiet Żgħar, tat-2 ta’ Awwissu, 2014, ġiet ordnata l-pubblikazzjoni tal-estratt li jidher hawn taħt għall-finijiet ta’ notifika skont l-Artikolu 187 (3)tal-Kodiċi ta’ Organizzazzjoni u Proċedura Ċivili (Kap. 12).
Go plc (C 22334), ta’ Triq Fra Diego, Marsa MRS 1501, ippreżentaw Talba, fit-30 ta’ Lulju, 2014, fejn talbu lit-Tribunal sabiex jikkundanna lil Helen Bugeja (KI 108894M), ta’ 6B, Triq San Bernard, Marsa, sabiex tħallas lis-soċjetà attriċi s-somma ta’ €473.19, liema ammont huwa dovut lis-soċjetà attriċi.
Bl-ispejjeż u bl-imgħaxijiet legali.
Il-kawża (Avviż Numru 524/14VG2) hija differita għat-12 ta’ Novembru, 2014 fis-1.00 p.m.
Reġistru tal-Qorti tal-Maġistrati (Malta), illum 24 ta’ Ottubru, 2014.
Alexandra Debattista
Għar-Reġistratur Qrati Ċivili u Tribunali
Notice 1672
1672B’digriet tat-Tribunal għal Talbiet Żgħar, tat-2 ta’ Awwissu, 2014, ġiet ordnata l-pubblikazzjoni tal-estratt li jidher hawn taħt għall-finijiet ta’ notifika skont l-Artikolu 187 (3)tal-Kodiċi ta’ Organizzazzjoni u Proċedura Ċivili (Kap. 12).
Go plc (C 22334), ta’ Triq Fra Diego, Marsa MRS 1501, ippreżentaw Talba, fil-21 ta’ Lulju, 2014, fejn talbu lit-Tribunal sabiex jikkundanna lil Dawn Louise Gale (KI 34242A), ta’ St Rita, Flat 2, Triq il-Ġunġlien, Ħal Qormi,sabiex tħallas lis-soċjetà attriċi s-somma ta’ €868.42, liema ammont huwa dovut lis-soċjetà attriċi.
Bl-ispejjeż u bl-imgħaxijiet legali.
Il-kawża (Avviż Numru 482/14VG2) hija differita għat-12 ta’ Novembru, 2014 fis-1.00 p.m.
Reġistru tal-Qorti tal-Maġistrati (Malta), illum 24 ta’ Ottubru, 2014.
Alexandra Debattista
Għar-Reġistratur Qrati Ċivili u Tribunali
Notice 1673
1673By a decree given on the 11th September, 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 (5) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12).
By the application filed in the Civil Court First Hall, on the 4th August, 2014, by Automated Revenue Management Services Limited (C 46054), application number 8/14, in the names, Cassar Belle Claudia Nicholetta vs Angerton Enterpises Limited (C 18187), is being asked that the company Revenue Automated Management Services Limited comes as another execution creditor for the amount of ten thousand five hundred and eighty-eight Euro and sixty-six euro cents (€10,588.66), representing payment for the company due to the consumption of light and water, rental of meters and other administrative expenses.
Marvic Farrugia
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1674
1674By means of a decree given by the Rent Regulation Board, on the 12th November, 2013, in the records ofthe Sworn Application, in the names Gauci Anthony vs Fenech Pawlu, Application number 39/13 GG, 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 a Notice of hearing of a cause issued by the Registry Superior Courts, on Wednesday, 5th June, 2013, the Application in the names, Gauci Anthony vs Fenech Pawlu, Application number 39/13 GG, was entered in the list of causes which are to be heard on Thursday, 27th June, 2013, at noon, and subsequently deferred various times, and is now appointed for hearing on the 11th December, 2014, at 9.30 a.m.
Respondent: Flat 1, Oakwood Flats, Triq il-Kurat Schembri, Mosta.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1675
1675It is hereby notified that by a decree dated the 16th of October, 2014, the Court of Magistrates (Gozo),in its Superior Jurisdiction, General Section, ordered the publication of the extract reproduced hereunder for the purpose of service in terms of Article 187 (3) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure, and this with regard to Joseph Portelli (ID 638648M), Maria Dolores, sive Doris Portelli (ID 347951M) and Why Properties Limited (C 33789).
By a decree given by the Court of Magistrates (Gozo), Superior Jurisdiction, General Section, on the 29th September, 2014, on the application of Victor Theuma, in the records of judicial Sale by Auction 1/2013 in the names, Victor Theuma vs Joseph Portelli et, Monday 17th November, 2014 at 10.00 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 property:
A partitioned portion of land with all the assets thereon erected, situated in the limits of Għajnsielem, Gozo, forming part of a region known as “Ta’ San Ġwann”, which partitioned portion of land superficially measures seven square metres (7 square metres), accessible from St Anthony Street. This property is bounded on the East by the said street, on the North by property pertaining to Dr Arthur Mercieca, on the South by a parapet pertaining to Louis Xerri, and on the West by property pertaining to Mariella Mercieca, and a partitionedportion of land, with all the assets thereon erected, situated in the limits of Għajnsielem, Gozo, forming part of a region known as “Ta’ San Ġwann”, which partitioned portion of land superficially measures at one hundred and forty-four square metres (144 square metres), and is accessible from St Anthony Street. This property is bounded on the East by the property mentioned in the previous paragraph, from which land this land is accessible, and in part by a parapet pertaining to Louis Xerri, on the North by property pertaining toDr Arthur Mercieca, and on the South by property pertaining to Louis Xerri, valued at €54,000.
A detailed report regarding the liabilities burdening these properties is drawn up by the legal referee Dr Simone Grech in the records of the judicial sale proceedings.
The said property pertains to the company Why Properties Limited, registration number C 33789, and will be sold as described in the report sworn to by AIC Joseph Sapienza on the 16th August, 2013.
Daniel Sacco
For the Registrar Gozo Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1676
1676By means of a decree given by the First Hall Civil Court, on the 8th October, 2014, in the records of the Sworn Application, in the names Ballut Blocks Services Limited vs Acorn Properties Limited, Application number 496/12 JPG, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the Director Joseph Farrugia in terms of Article 187 (3) et. seq. of Cap. 12.
By means of a Notice of Hearing of a cause which was set down again for hearing the Application, in the names, Ballut Blocks Services Limited vs Acorn Properties Limited, application number 496/12 JPG, which had been an Abstention by Judge J Zammit Mckeon, from Monday 8th October, 2012, was set down again for hearing on Thursday, 29th November, 2012, at 9.15 a.m. By various Court orders, the said Application was deferred, and now the said (Application number 496/12 JPG) has been appointed for hearing on the 26th November, 2014, at 9.15 a.m.
Service: ‘Ilwien’, Triq Wied Anġlu, Birguma, Naxxar.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1677
1677It is hereby notified that by a decree of the 24th October, 2014, given by the Court of Magistrates (Gozo), Superior Jurisdiction, General Section, the Court ordered that the hereunder extract be published for the purpose of service according to Article 338 (1) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12).
Whereas by an application and a concurrent schedule of set-off filed by Carmel Portelli (ID 36460G); Mary Portelli (ID 41862G); Mario Dimech (ID 59258G); Carmen, sive Lina Dimech (ID 50459G); Architect and Civil Engineer Angelo Portelli (ID 24078G); and Dr Nicolette Camilleri (ID 19178G), on the 14th of October, 2014, the approval of the said set-off is being demanded for the amount of €171,000 and this subsequent to the judicial Sale by Auction number 13/2014, in the names Carmel Portelli et vs Dr Joseph Grech noe, held under the authority of the said Court on the 13th October, 2014.
According to Article 338 (2) of Cap. 12: Any person who may have an interest and the persons so served shall be allowed the time of twenty days to file an answer stating in detail the reasons for their opposition and the amounts in contestation, and where such opposition is based on a claim against the proceeds of sale and alleged cause of preference, they are to state the amount of such claim and the basis for the preference. Such persons shall with the answer file all relevant evidence to substantiate their opposition.
Daniel Sacco
For the Registrar
Notice 1678
1678By means of a decree given on the 15th October, 2014, by the Rent Regulation Board, in the records of the Application, in the names, Paul Sleath who has an English Passport 761205334 vs Lorna Elizabeth Maltby, who has identity card 54960A, Application number 57/14 GG, 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 a Notice of hearing of a cause issued by the Registry of the Superior Courts, on Tuesday, 16th September, 2014, the Application number 57/14 GG, in the names Sleath Paul vs Maltby Lorna Elizabeth, was entered in the list of causes which are to be heard on Thursday, 9th October, 2014, at noon and deferred for the 24th November, 2014, at 10.30 a.m.
Respondent: 525/526, Triq il-Ġojjin, Santa Marija Estate, Mellieħa.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1679
1679By a decree given by the Civil Court First Hall, on the 1st October, 2014, on the application of Bank of Valletta plc, Tuesday, 2nd December, 2014, at half past eleven in the morning, has been fixed for the Sale by Auction to be held on the first floor, Law Courts, Republic Street, Valletta, of the following property:
The portion of land measuring approximately four hundred seventy-five square metres (475 square metres), forming part of the lands known as “Tal-Iskorra l-Kbira”, limits of Żejtun, in “Tal-Iskorra l-Kbira” district, subject to an annual and temporary groundrent of forty-six Euro and fifty- nine cents (€46.59) for an outstanding period of eighteen (18) years, valued at eleven thousand Euro (€11,000).
The said tenement is the property of Seychell John Mary et.
N.B. The said tenement will be sold as described in the acts of file number 69/11.
Rudolph Marmarà
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1680
1680By a decree given by the Civil Court First Hall, on the 23rd September, 2014, on the application of Grixti Tony, Tuesday, 18th November, 2014, at half past ten in the morning, has been fixed for the Sale by Auction to be held in the first floor of these Courts of Justice, Republic Street, Valletta, of the following properties:
The groundfloor maisonette, with its own airspace, in Sqaq San Anard, sive Sqaq San Leonardu, Żejtun, unofficially marked with number five (5) letter ‘A’, subject to an annual and perpetual groundrent of four cents two mils (4c2), free and unencumbered, with all its rights, and valued one hundred and seventy-five thousand and five hundredEuros (€175,500).
The ground floor maisonette, with its own airspace, in Sqaq San Anard, sive Sqaq San Leonardu, Żejtun, unofficially marked with number five (5) letter ‘B’, subject to an annual and perpetual groundrent of four cents two mils (4c2), free and unencumbered, with all its rights, and valued one hundred and twenty-nine thousand Euros (€129,000).
The said tenements are the property of Bonnici Carl et.
N.B. The said tenements will be sold as described in the acts 74/2013.
Rudolph Marmarà
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1681
1681By means of a decree given on the 13th October, 2014, by the Court of Appeal, in the records of the Appeal, in the names, Angela Conti vs Lawrence Bonnici, Application number 19/10, 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 Angela Conti vs Lawrence Bonnici, on the 17th July, 2013, the applicant Lawrence Bonnici (ID 189858M) respectfully pleaded:
1. That the parties are not married, and were in a relationship which lasted about seven years.
2. That from this relationship ...omissis... was born on the 2nd June, 1999.
3. That in June of the year 2000, namely when the minor girl was only one year old, the plaintiff terminated this relationship due to the fact that the defendant was not carrying out the responsibilties expected by a father.
4. ...........omissis...........
5. ...........omissis...........
6. ...........omissis...........
11. That the plaintiff had to proceed by means of a lawsuit after the mediation procedures commenced by her failed.
Thus, the plaintiff respectfully asks this Honourable Court:
1. To liquidate the maintenance payable by the defendant for the minor girl, and order the defendant to pay the plaintiff that adequate maintenance it deems fit and adequate for the needs of the minor.
...........omissis...........
That by means of a sworn reply, the defendant pleaded the following:
...........omissis...........
That in virtue of a judgement dated 27th June, 2013, this Honourable Court decided by rejecting the first plea of the defendant, and upholding the plaintiff’s demands.
...........omissis...........
That the applicant felt aggrieved by this decision, and is thus filing this appeal.
1. That in the first place, the applicant submits that the list as presented by the plaintiff is completely exagerated, and it appears clear that various bills are attributable exclusively to the mother.
2. ...........omissis...........
3. That with all respect, the amount decided by this Honourable Court is very exagerated keeping in view the limited means of the respondent...........omissis...........
Thus, in view of all that premised, whilst referring to the proof produced and all the records and reserve to bring further proof according to law, the appellant respectfully prays that this Honourable Court revokes the judgement given by the Civil Court (Family Section), on the 27th June, 2013, as herein demanded.
Whereas the written procedures in the cause before the Court of Appeal between Angela Conti vs Lawrence Bonnici have been closed, the Court fixed the hearing of the cause on Tuesday, fourth (4th) of November, 2014, at 9.30 a.m.
Service: Angela Conti, 8, Viani Street, Sliema.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1682
1682By a decree given on the 15th October, 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 Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12).
By a decree given by the Civil Court First Hall, on the 23rd September, 2014, on the application of A & J Baldacchino Boatyard, Wednesday, 5th November, 2014, at ten o’clock in the morning (10.00 a.m.), has been fixed for the Sale by Auction to be held at A & J Baldacchino Boatyard Limited, Triq Ħal Far, Birżebbuġa, of the following items seized from the property of Mangion Christian (ID 249976M).
Sailing boat named ‘Anchor Song’, measures ten point eight metres (10.8 m) coloured white with brown.
N.B. The said objects will be sold as described in the judicial acts number 27/14.
Rudolph Marmarà
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1683
1683By means of a decree of the 12th March, 2014, the Court of Magistrates (Malta) ordered the publication of the following extract for the purpose of effecting service to Michelle Spiteri in terms of Article 187 (3) of the Code of Organization and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12).
By means of a Warrant in Procinctu number 501/14 in the names Joseph (ID 776357M) and Mary (ID 706461M), spouses Zahra, vs Michelle Spiteri (ID 558983M), filed on the 28th February, 2014, Joseph and Mary, spouses Zahra,respectfully submitted to this Honourable Court that:
The applicants have obtained a judgement in the names above mentioned decided by the Courts of Magistrates (Malta) on the 14th November, 2012, (Notice Number 123/12CSH), where the respondent was ordered to pay the applicants the sum of€5,500 as the principal sum, €422.83 as interest and €941.64 as costs.Copy of the judgement and the relative taxed bill of costs are being attached as Doc. A and B.
That notwitsthanding that the applicants solicited the respondent to pay, she failed to effect payment.
A warrant of seizure number 218/13CP has already been filed but the Marshall in charge with the execution of the said warrant was informed by the mother and father of the respondent that she does not hold any assets.
Before that a garnishee order was filed but the local banks do not hold any funds of the respondent.
Accordingly, there is no other way how the applicants can execute the judgement in question, except by the issue of the warrant in procinctu.
The applicants have already filed a similar applicationto this (warrant number 442/13), but by means of a decree of the 8th March, 2013, the request therein made was rejected because the Court found that:
“Given that at this stage, it does not concretely and definitely result that the warrant of seizure number 218/13 will not be effectively executed in the application of the applicants for their executive title against the respondent, the request for the issue of a warrant in procinctu cannot be accepted.”
A copy of this decree is being exhibited as Doc. C.
That today, it is established that such warrant will not bring about a favourable outcome to the applicants. In fact by means of a decree of the 27th February, 2014, a request of the applicants for the withdrawal of a cheque deposited by the father of the respondent has not been accepted as results from the attached decree (Doc. D).
Thus. the applicants are praying with respect this Honourable Court to order the issue of the warrant in procinctu as provided in Article 388G of Cap. 12, and consequently issue those necessary orders so that the respondent pays the amount due according to the judgement above mentioned, and this under those directions that this Court deems fit and proper.
Applicants:Felci, 75, Triq San Filippu, Għaxaq.
Respondent:Michelle Spiteri of 81, Sonia House, St Philip Street, Birżebbuġa.
For all intents and purposes, on the 10th March, 2014, a note was filed by Carmel Dominic Spiteri (ID 415561M) and Teresa Spiteri (ID 676161M), where they said that by means of this note they returned the judicial act here attached because they accepted the notification at their shop with the name Water colours, Dawret il-Gżejjer, Buġibba, San Pawl il-Baħar SPB 2507, that was addressed to their daughter Michelle Spiteri, today of age, erroneously because Michelle Spiteri does not have any connection with the said premises.
In addition, it is noted that the applicants know of this fact since the applicants and themselves were involved in judicial proceedings specifically on this point, and although they cannot understand why the applicants are insisting that they should notify or enforce warrants on property which is exclusively theirs.
Accordingly, they are returning the same acts to be notified to Michelle Spiteri according to law.
In the Courts of Magistrates (Malta)
Magistrate: Dr Charmaine Galea BA, LLD
In the records of Warrant in Procinctu 501/14
Joseph Zahra et vsMichelle Spiteri
The Court
Having seen the application
Orders the notification of the said application to the respondent with four (4) days within which to reply.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1684
1684By means of a decree of the 30th September, 2014, in the First Hall of the Civil Courts,in the records of the judicial letter number 1861/14, in the names Bank of Valletta plc vsGreentech Solutions Limited, 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 against Greentech Solutions Limited (C 47802), of6, Northfields, Independence Avenue, Mosta, on the 18th June, 2014, Bank of Valletta plc, of1/5, Misraħ San Ġorġ, Valletta VLT 1190,calls upon you so that within two days you paythe sum of €379,156.51 balance of debt in your Business Loan and Overdraft Accounts with Bank of Valletta plctogetherwith further interests from the 24th May, 2014.
The interpellant company warns you that if you fail, they shall be constrained to proceed against you according to law.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1685
1685By means of a decree of the 13th June, 2014, in the First Hall of the Civil Courts,in the records of the judicial letter number 1105/14, in the names Bank of Valletta plc vsDaren Gouder, ordered the following publication for the purpose of service in terms of Article 187 (3) of Cap. 12.
By means of a judicial letter filed in the First Hall of the Civil Courts against Daren Gouder (ID 84379M), ofSwalk, Flat 3, Triq il-Ħajja Ewlenija, Birżebbuġa, on the 9th April, 2014, Bank of Valletta plc, of1/5, Misraħ San Ġorġ, Valletta VLT 1190, calls upon you so that within two days you paythe sum of €114,181.69 balance of debt in yourLoan and Overdraft Accounts with Bank of Valletta plctogetherwith further interests from the 26th March, 2014.
The interpellant company warns you that if you fail, they shall be constrained to proceed against you according to law.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1686
1686By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal, ofthe 16th 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 (C 24655), ofTriq Fra Diego, Marsa MRS 1501, filed a Claim, on the 15th July, 2014, whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Clint Sultana (ID 63983M), of125, St Philip Court, Flat 8, Triq Patri Ġużepp Calleja, San Pawl il-Baħar,to pay the plaintiff company the sum of€1,584.12 which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With costs andinterests.
The case (Claim Number 464/14VG) is deferred for the 12th November, 2014 at 1.00 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1687
1687By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal, of the 2nd August, 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 (C 24655), ofTriq Fra Diego, Marsa MRS 1501, filed a Claim, on the 30th July, 2014, whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Brian Smith (ID 27329A), of146, Ivan, Flat 1A, Vjal il-Wieħed u Għoxrin ta’ Settembru, Naxxar,to pay the plaintiff company the sum of€312.15, which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With costs and legal interests.
The case (Claim Number 530/14VG) is deferred for the 12th November, 2014 at 1.00 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals