Go Back
Court Notices published in Govt. Gazette No. 19,269 of 17th June 2014
01/01/2014
Notice 969
969By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal, ofthe 29th 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).
Mobisle Communications Limited (C 24655), of Fra Diego Street, Marsa MRS 1501, filed a Claim on the 25th February, 2014 whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Ruth Scerri and Anna Grech (ID 266768M), ofCapricorn,Flat 2, Triq A Caligari, Żabbar,to pay the plaintiff company the sum of €1,649.94 which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With costs and legal interests.
The case (Claim Number 121/14VG2) is deferred for the 25th June, 2014 at 12.30 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 970
970By means of an application filed in the Civil Court of Voluntary Jurisdiction Section, on the 4th March, 2013 Application number 124/2013 by Estelle Azzopardi, John Azzopardi Vella, son of John and Mary née Vella, born in Sliema, holding identity card number 466438(M), was Incapacitated by means of a decree given on the 5th March, 2014 and under the conditions therein mentioned.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Court and Tribunals
Notice 971
971Whereas Dottor Marija Aida Rosser filed a writ of summons number 38/2014 (JVC)in the names Dr Marija Aida Rosser vs Direttur tar-Reġistru Pubbliku għal Għawdex, demanding Corrections in her Act of Birth bearing number two hundred and eighty-seven, of the year one thousand nine hundred and fifty-eight (287/1958).
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 (15) 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 serviceof a copy of the said writ of summons of the day which will be appointed for the hearing of the case.
Maureen Xuereb
For the Registrar Gozo Courts and Tribunals
Notice 972
972By a decree given by the Civil Court First Hall, on the 16th April, 2014 on the application of Joseph Said Limited, Thursday, 26th June, 2014 at noon, for the Sale by Auction to be held on the first floor of these Courts of Justice, Republic Street, Valletta of the following properties:
The maisonette named ‘Lord Reigns’, without its airspace, in Triq San Ġużepp, Mosta, with annual and perpetual groundrent of seventy Euro, valued at one hundred and three thousand, and five hundred Euro (€103,500).
The garage internally marked with number three (3), forming part and underlying the same block in Triq San Ġużepp, Mosta, free and unencumbered, with all its rights and enjoyments, valued at thirteen thousand Euro (€13,000).
The said tenements are the property of Agius Albert.
N.B. The said tenements will be sold as described in the acts of file 22/14.
Rudolph Marmarà
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 973
973It is hereby notified that in virtue of the powers conferred on it by Article 257 of the Civil Code,the Court of Revision of Notarial Acts, by a Decree dated the 10th day of June, 2014 and this after a written plea numbered 78/14 ordered:
The correction of the Act of Death of Anna Xuereb, bearing number 762, of the year 2014, under the columns entitled ‘Whether married or unmarried, widower or widow’,the word‘Widow’ is to be cancelled and substituted with the word ‘Wife’.
Mary Josette Musù
For the Registrar Court of Revision of Notarial Acts
Notice 974
974By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal, ofthe 2nd 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 (C 24655), ofTriq Fra Diego, Marsa MRS 1501, filed a Claim on the 23rd April, 2014 whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Juanita Fenech (ID 148761M), of Edwidgeville, Triq is-Sienja, Attard, to pay the plaintiff company the sum of€356.97, which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With costs and interests.
The case (Claim Number 268/14VG2) is deferred for the 25th June, 2014 at 1.00 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 975
975By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal, of the 8th 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).
Mobisle Communications Limited (C 24655), ofTriq Fra Diego, Marsa MRS 1501, filed a Claim on the 4th April, 2014 whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Marc Simon Freedman (ID 33918A), of Villa Capricorn, Triq J Kepler, Mellieħa, to pay the plaintiff company the sum of€724.08, which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With costs and interests.
The case (Claim Number 234/14VG2) is deferred for the 25th June, 2014 at 1.00 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 976
976By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal, of the 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).
Mobisle Communications Limited (C 24655), ofTriq Fra Diego, Marsa MRS 1501, filed a Claim on the 10th April, 2014 whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Donnalise Grech (ID 204692M), of Capricorn, Flat 2, Triq A Caligari, Ħaż-Żabbar, to pay the plaintiff company the sum of€1,435.43 which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With costs and legal interests.
The case (Claim Number 246/14VG2) is deferred for the 25th June, 2014 at 1.00 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 977
977By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal, of the 22nd 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 (C 24655), ofTriq Fra Diego, Marsa MRS 1501, filed a Claim on the 4th April, 2014 whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Elebrashy Sherief (ID 576992M),ofCloisters Walk Res, Block 7, Flat 8, Triq il-Karmnu, San Ġiljan, to pay the plaintiff company the sum of €300.42, which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With costs and interests.
The case (Claim Number 237/14VG2) is deferred for the 25th June, 2014 at 1.00 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunal
Notice 978
978By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal, of the 8th 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).
Mobisle Communications Limited (C 24655), ofTriq Fra Diego, Marsa MRS 1501,filed a Claim on the 25th March, 2014 whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Grante Merilina (ID 68144A), of 9C, Triq l-Ilma, Swieqi,to pay the plaintiff company the sum of €399.41, which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With costs and interests.
The case (Claim Number 215/14VG2) is deferred for the 25th June, 2014 at 1.00 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 979
979By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal, of the 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).
Mobisle Communications Limited (C 24655), ofTriq Fra Diego, Marsa MRS 1501, filed a Claim on the 10th April, 2014 whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Donnalise Grech (ID 204692M), of Capricorn, Flat 2, Triq A Caligari, Ħaż-Żabbar,to pay the plaintiff company the sum of €2,479.34 which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With costs and legal interests.
The case (Claim Number 247/14VG2) is deferred for the 25th June, 2014 at 1.00 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 980
980By means of a decree given on the 27th May, 2014 by the Court of Appeal, in the records of the Appeal Application, in the names Mary Grech vs Anthony Grech et, Appeal Application number 1220/01, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondents Anthony Grech et 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 Mary Grech vs Anthony Grech and Reno Grech, and by a decree of the 12th November, 2008 the proceedings were transferred onto the name of Carmel, sive Charles Grech, Emanuel, sive Lino Grech, and Mario Grech, as well on to the name Joseph and Maria Concetta Grech for any interest they may have to continue the lawsuit instead of the defendant Anthony Grech who died during the proceedings on the 10th April, 2014 the applicant Mary Grech (ID 337554M) respectfully pleaded:
1. That by means of the present cause, the plaintiff is demanding that it be declared that as a result of simulation and deceit exercised by the defendants by the registration of the company Merger Enterprises Limited, the plaintiff suffered damages, declare furthermore that the same defendants were responsible in solidum together with the debt and loss in the assets and in the business run by the company Merger Enterprises Limited.
2. That in reply to these demands, the defendant Reno Grech replied by pleading that in the first place the registration of the company Merger Enterprises Limited did not cause any damage to the plaintiff, in the second place the debts made by the company Merger Enterprises Limited were necessary for the running of the same company, and the plaintiff enjoyed and still enjoys from funds and assets property of the company Merger Enterprises Limited.
3. That the defendant Anthony Grech pleaded that it is not the case that the interpellant caused damages to the plaintiff for reasons brought forward on her part in the present writ of summons.
4. That by means of the judgement in the names above referred, dated 21st March, 2014 the Honourable Court of First Instance decided the present cause by:
1. Upholding the plea of the defendant Anthony Grech, and rejected the demands in regard to the plaintiff, at the cost of the applicant.
2. Upheld the first plea of the defendant Reno Grech.
3...........omissis...........
4...........omissis...........
5...........omissis...........
6...........omissis...........
7. Condemned the defendant Reno Grech to pay the plaintiff the sum of forty-one thousand, nine hundred twenty-eight Euro and fifty cents (€41,928.50), with interest from today saving that stated above.
5. That the interpellant felt aggrieved by the judgement above referrred to, and is filing this humble appeal therefrom.
6. The facts of the case can be summarised as follows:
1. On the 21st September, 1984 during the marriage with Reno Grech, the defendants had registered the company Merger Enterprises Limited, within which the defendant Anthony Grech, had 499 shares of One Maltese Lira each and the other defendant had one share.
2. In virtue of a judgement of the 26th June, 1998 the Court declared that the contract in virtue of which the company with the defendants was set up was simulated and made by deceit and to the detriment of the rights of the plaintiff in the community of acquests, with the intention that she be deprived of her rights.
3. That furthermore in virtue of the same judgement, it was declared that the shares in the name of Anthony Grech are in reality of the community of acquests existing between the plaintiff and the defendant Reno Grech.
4...........omissis...........
5...........omissis...........
6. The company was administered by deceit or great carelessness, and in any case was not administered in good faith in the interest of the same company, and made huge debts and losses.
7. The plaintiff suffered damages for which the defendants are liable in solidum.
That the grievances are clear and manifest, and consist in the following:
1. That in the first place, the applicant feels that it was completely unjust besides contrary to that contemplated by law, that all the respondents except the respondent Nazzareno, sive Reno Grech, were effectively freed from the observance of the judgement because according to the Honourable First Court, there was nothing to be sanctioned in the behaviour of their predecessor Anthony Grech in the context of what is being described by the applicant as the damaging act in regard to which compensation is being demanded.
...........omissis...........
(a) In regard to the defendant Anthony Grech, this complaint cannot be upheld once he was simply a ‘prestanome’ of 499 shares and nothing more, and in actual fact the company was run by Reno Grech.
...........omissis...........
That what is contested by the applicant in this regard has nothing to do with the appreciation of the proof as made by the Honourable First Court.
...........omissis...........
Is it justificable that Anthony Grech (or rather his heirs), now hide behind the behaviour of Reno Grech so that they be absolutely freed from his responsibility in regard to the applicant when according to the judgement dated 26th June, 1998 in the names Mary Grech vs Reno Grech and Anthony Grech (974/95 GV), it was already remarked that the plaintiff brought precise and concrete proof to show that the defendants wanted to evade the rights by this simulated deed.
Is it justificable that at this stage that one asks from where this responsibility towards Anthony Grech emerges. Certainly the applicant is not alleging that it was Anthony Grech who made the debt ...omissis... But it is true that if Reno Grech as sole director within the company was given the powers to raise loans by means of assets which effectively appertained to the community of acquests, someone not only gave him the faculty to carry out such acts in the name of the company, and thus helped him in this sense but also permitted that such acts be carried out with the purpose that the community of acquests be rendered insolvent.
That in this context, the interpellants humbly submit that the Honourable First Court had to consider whether Anthony Grech was effectively ‘prestanome’ of the shares as determined even by means of the extract of the judgement above mentioned, he was acting as a ‘prestanome’ in the name of the community of acquests. It is namely from here that his responsibilities towards the applicant result.
...........omissis...........
That established thus that both Anthony Grech as well as Reno Grech acted in fraud of the interests of the present plaintiff, namely by forming a company with limited responsibility, and furthermore transferred on to it assets of the community of acquests ...omissis... In more simple terms it results clearly that Anthony Grech and Reno Grech did not form the company Merger Enterprises Limited for the purposes of normal running of business, but with the precise purpose to deprive the applicant from her rights on the community of acquests by alienating such rights in favour of the company.
...........omissis...........
That in this regard, it is proved that despite that Anthony Grech formally had the majority of shares of the company, he still chose to appoint Reno Grech as sole director with absolute powers as regards the legal and judicial representation of the company and with the right to borrow money, hypothecate or alienate property of the company according to the ‘objects clause’ of the same company. It is evident from all this that the deceit or bad faith of Anthony Grech, in regard to the applicant was not limited to the formation of the company ‘sic et simpliciter’, but to the formation of the company in such a manner that from every aspect especially in the running and administration of it, the rights of the applicant were seriously prejudiced.
...........omissis...........
That it is also thus why the same Anthony Grech cannot be witheld without any responsibility for all the damages suffered by the community of acquests.
2. That what is effectively unjust is that the Honourable First Court with all respect due, ignored completed the‘consilium fraudis’ between Anthony Grech and Reno Grech, which clearly resulted not only in the formation of the company itself but also:
...........omissis...........
...........omissis...........
...........omissis...........
It is the humble submission of the applicants that although the debt was made by Reno Grech, Anthony Grech cannot be exonerated from his civil responsibility for all the debt. Finally, it is stated that it is the case that Reno Grech, in so far as director had in his hands the running of the company, but this administration of the company was not given to him by law, or the applicants but only the company in which Anthony Grech had all the shares except one.
3. That in this regard, it is certainly relevant that in civil matters, the participation in acts of a fraudulent nature is punishable amongst others by means of the ‘actio pauliana’ which renders the ‘consilium fraudis’ an essential element of it.
...........omissis...........
That in this context, it is opportune that reference is also made to that decided by the First Hall Civil Court, on the 26th October, 2001 judgement in the names Brigitte Vella vs Richard Vella et and namely that:
Thus, although the husband is the head of the community of acquests he can do nothing to prejudice the rights of his wife in the same community.
That in these procedures, Reno Grech never testified despite of presenting his pleas to the plaintiff’s demands. Thus, also in the cause Bank of Valletta plc vs Merger Enterprises Limited, and Reno and Mary, spouses Grech, decided by the First Hall Civil Court, on the 15th November, 2005 it was only the applicant who brought forward pleas to the Bank’s demands in an attempt to defend her rights as regards her shares in the community of acquests against the behaviour of her husband and of Anthony Grech.
4. That completely without prejudice to the above, the applicant complains that the Honourable First Court Civil Court was not just when it limited the liquidation of interests till the 27th April, 2001 as regards the sum of sixty-nine thousand eight hundred eighty-one Euro (€69,881).
...........omissis...........
Thus even after the applicant formally took back the running of the company, she could do very little to improve its condition.
...........omissis...........
That thus the applicant justly contends that the interest on the said sum should not be limited to the date above mentioned, but should still run till the date of effective payment by the respondents or who of them to the applicant of the debt paid by her, and this because it is only on that date that the applicant is once again reimbursed entirely by the respondents or either of whom for the damage suffered by her as regards the judgement obtained by the Bank of Valletta plc.
...........omissis...........
5. That in addition to the above, it is to be noted also that the Honourable First Court did not consider all the damages suffered by the applicant even in view of the fact that the fraudulent and deceitful use of the company Merger Enterprises Limited there were serious problems as regards tax, in such a manner that not even a statement of account as required by law could be presented as no accounts were being kept.
...........omissis...........
6. That finally and without any prejudice to the above, it is to be stated that the applicant cannot understand the reasoning of the Honourable First Court, which lead the Court not to consider fully the fact that the respondent Reno Grech effectively transferred also the premises or rather ‘warehouse’ ‘Elia’, in Ħal Qormi, in the name of the company, besides burdening such property with the undermentioned debt. The applicant is of the humble opinion that the Honourable First Court had to consider this fact also when it liquidated the compensation for the effective damage suffered by the applicant. It is clear that once the ‘warehouse’ as noted by the Honourable First Court was acquired by Reno Grech, on the 13th January, 1990 and namely when the applicant and the said Reno Grech were still married, such property should certainly be considered as included in the community of acquests.
...........omissis...........
That this also should justify the above reasoning that the interest on the sum liquidated in favour of the Bank should not be limited to the date of the 27th April, 2001.
Thus, the applicant whilst referring to all the proof already brought forward, and reserve to bring forward all the proof permitted by law respectfully pray that this Honourable Court reforms the judgement appealed dated 21st March, 2014 in the names Mary Grech vs Anthony Grech and Reno Grech, and by a decree of the 12th November, 2008 the judgement was transferred onto the name of Carmel, sive Charles Grech, Emanuel, sive Lino Grech, and Mario Grech, as well in the name of Joseph and Maria Concetta, spouses Grech, for any interest she may have in order to continue the cause instead of the defendant Anthony Grech, who died during the proceedings of the cause, and this as demanded in the application. With costs against the respondents.
Notify Respondents: Carmel Grech et, 5, Felice Street, Żabbar.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 981
981By a decree of the Civil Court of Voluntary Jurisdiction Section, of the 30th May, 2014 the publication of the following extract was ordered for the purpose of effecting service in terms of Article 187 (3) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12).
By means of an application number 770/2013 filed by the Ministry of Family and Social Solidarity, on the 24th July, 2013 respectfully pleaded that:
The minors omissis and omissis, children of Graziella Pulis and of unknown father, born on the 27th August, 2007 and 13th November, 2008 respectively (copies of birth certificates attached and marked as Doc. A and Doc. B respectively) are protected by Care Orders that were issued on the 18th December, 2008 (copies attached and marked as Doc. C and Doc. D respectively) in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 4 of Cap. 285 of the Act of 1980 regarding Children and Young Persons (Care Orders of the Laws of Malta).Omissis has been in taken care by foster careres from 2008, and her sister omissis has been in the hands of foster carers since 2009.
The persons entrusted with the care of the minors have shown the wish so that the minors will be baptised by the Roman Catholic rite, and this so that they may participate in full in the life of these families including in their religious beliefs, and they will not feel excluded from taking part in the religious activities together with other members of the respective families.
That the minor omissis attends school, and it is the wish of the her foster carer that she can participate in the religious activities together with her class company.It is also important for the social formation of the same minor so that she will celebrate her First Holy Communion together with her friends of the same age.
The foster carers of the minor omissis wish that she will be registered so that from next October she will attend a Church school for the benefit of the minor, which is not possible if the said minor will not be baptised by the Roman Catholic rite.
In the opinion of professionals, it will be determinedfor the stability and for the emotional growth of the minors if they begin to feel different from other members of the family with whom they have lived and also from their friends.
The social workers have explored the possibility with the mother of the minors to be baptised, and on her part although she never gave any particular or valid reason why the minors should not be baptised the minors she is refusing to give her consent so that the minors will be baptised.
In the circumstances the Children and Young Persons Advisory Board recommended that in the best interest of the minors, it has to be sought the authorisation of this Honourable Court so that the said minors will be baptised (a copy of the recommandations of the Children and Young Persons Advisory Board attached and marked as Doc. E and Doc. F).
This application has to be decided immediately because of the fact that the minor is going to start school next October and if she will not be baptised immediatly, her foster carers will not be able to apply so that the minor will start attending a Church School. And also, the minor omissis cannot make her First Holy Communion together with children of her age this year, if she is not baptised in a short time.So any delay will be of considerable prejudice to the interests of the same minor.
Thus, the applicant prays with respect that this Honourable Court authorise the minors omissis and omissis to be baptised with the Roman Catholic rite, and this in the interest of the same minors, and this under those conditions that this Honourable Court deems fit to order.
Service:
Graziella Pulis, Block B, Fountain Street, Valletta.
Civil Court of Voluntary Jurisdiction Section
Honourable Mr Justice Dottor Anthony Ellul LLD
Application Number 770/13
The Court
Saw the application filed on the 24th July, 2013
Orders that the applicant:
1. Declares for how long the minors have been living with the foster carers, and if this was continuous;
2. Confirms if now the minors are living together;
3. Declares where the minors are attending school;
4. Declares who is maintaining the minors;
5. What contact is there between the natural mother and her children;
6. What was the reason why a care order was issued from the Ministry of Social Policy, and if this order was ever contested by the mother.In the affermative information is to be given.
Orders that the application and decree be notified to the natural mother so that she can reply within six (6) days from the service.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Court and Tribunals
Notice 982
982By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal, of the 18th 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).
APS Bank Limited (C 2192), of APS Centre, Tower Street, Birkirkara BKR 4012, filed a Claim on the 19th December, 2013 whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn David Alexander Grima (ID 337209L), ofMarpin Flats, Flat 3, Triq San Ġorġ, San Pawl il-Baħar, to pay the plaintiff company the sum of €754.39, which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With costs andinterests.
The case (Claim Number 803/13KPS) is deferred for the 24th June, 2014 at 12.30 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 983
983By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal, of the 2nd 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).
Go plc (C 22334), ofTriq Fra Diego, Marsa MRS 1501,filed a Claim on the 23rd April, 2014 whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Willis Elizabeth (ID 63092A), ofCarvedut Court, Flat 11, Triq ir-Rattan, Mellieħa,to pay the plaintiff company the sum of€669.91, which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With costs andlegal interests.
The case (Claim Number 262/14VG2) is deferred for the 25th June, 2014 at 1.00 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 984
984By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal, ofthe 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).
Mobisle Communications Limited (C 24655), of Triq Fra Diego, Marsa MRS 1501, filed a Claim on the 8th April, 2014 whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Antonio Mosca (ID 48241A),of 26, Triq il-Lampara, Naxxar,to pay the plaintiff company the sum of€411.67, which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With costs and interests.
The case (Claim Number 242/14VG2) is deferred for the 25th June, 2014 at 1.00 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 985
985By means of an application filed in the Civil Court of Voluntary Jurisdiction Section, on the 30th May, 2014 Application number 496/2014 by Maria Rosaria, sive Mary Rose Pace, whereby she prayed that it be declared open in her favour in its entirety the Succession of her brother Anthony Pace, Bachelor, son of the late Joseph and Marynée Vassallo, born and resided in Valletta, and died in Tal-Qroqq, limits of Imsida, on the 1st December, 2013 aged 66, intestate, holding identity card number 970447(M).
Wherefore any person who considers to have an interest in the matter is hereby called upon to appear before the said Court, and to bring forward his objections hereto by a minute to be filed within fifteen days from the posting of the banns and notices according to law.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Court and Tribunals