Go Back
Court Notices published in Govt. Gazette No. 19,262 of 3rd June 2014
01/01/2014
Notice 888
888By means of an application filed in the Civil Court of Voluntary Jurisdiction Section, on the 20th May, 2014 Application number 466/2014 by Michael Brincat and others, whereby they prayed that it be declared open in favour ofCarmelo, Emmanuel, Michael, Nazzareno and Giorgia Muscat, all brothers and sisters Brincat, brothers and sisters of the decujus, and this in the quota of one tenth (1/10) undivided share each one of them, in the quota of one tenth (1/10) between them in favour of the children of the late Francis Lewis Brincat, in the quota of one tenth (1/10) between them in favour of the children of the late Giuseppe Brincat, in the quota of one tenth (1/10) between them in favour of the children of the late Pauline, sive Paola Rostron, in the quota of one tenth (1/10) between them in favour of the children of the late Antonia Maxin, and in the quota of one tenth (1/10) in favour of the children and the descendants of the late Govanna Baldacchino, the Succession ofMaria Concetta Brincat, unmarried, daughterof the late Carmelo and Carmela née Galea, born and resided in Birkirkara, where she died on the 4th June, 2013 aged 75, intestate, holding identity card number 1492389(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
Notice 889
889By means of an application filed in the Civil Court of Voluntary Jurisdiction Section, on the 14th May, 2014 Application number 440/2014 by Carmen Spiteri, whereby she prayed that it be declared open in her favour in its entirety theSuccession ofher parents, Crocefisso Agius, son of the late Giorgio and Giuseppa née Galea, born and resided in Qormi, and died in Pietà, on the 3rd November, 1995 aged 76, holding identity card number 134819(M), and of Antonia Agius, widow of Crocefisso, son of the late Antonio Tabone and Francesca née Galea, born and resided in Qormi, and died in Tal-Qroqq, limits of Imsida, on the 26th December, 2013 aged 89, holding identity card number 119324(M), both of whom died intestate.
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
Notice 890
890By means of a decree given on the 29th April, 2014 by the Court of Appeal, in the records of the Appeal Application, in thenames Notary Marilena Cristina noe vs Public Service Commission et, Application number 525/12, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondents Dr Josephine Psaila and Dr Robert Cuschieri 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 Notary Marilena Cristina as special mandatary of Dr Robert Cuschieri (ID 154171M), and on the 9th January, 2013 the records of the cause were transferred on to Dr Robert Cuschieri vs Public Service Commission and by a decree of the 12th November, 2012 Dr Angela Sultana, Dr Predrag Andrejev and Dr Josephine Psaila, were joined into the suit, on the 25th November, 2013 the applicant Public Serrvice Commission respectfully pleaded:
1. That by means of the Application brought forward on the 25th May, 2012 the applicant premised the following:
That the applicant was appointed mandatary of Robert Cuschieri, of 16, Triq il-Grazzja, Żebbuġ ZBG 1058, who is temporarily outside Malta to institute and file the necessary judicial actions to protect his interests.
That on the 20th July, 2010 the respondent Commission issued a notice in the Government Gazette that it upheld applications from Medical Practitioners with suitable qualfications and experience for the post of Designate Consultant Surgeon which leads to the appointment of Consultant Surgeon with special interestin Hepato Pancreato Biliary Surgery in the Ministery of Health, the Elderly and Community Care.
That the applicant had applied for this post from the interviews which were held by a letter of the Commission dated 20th January, 2011 he was informedthat he had come first in the selection process.
That on the 8th June, 2011 the applicant received other correspondence from the respondentCommission whereby he was informed that he was not eligible to the call for applications according to paragraph 6(E) of the call.
...........omissis...........
That the criterialisted in the call for applications of theJuly 2010 under Article 6(D) are that till the date of the call for applicationthe candidate shall have a practice certificate in General Surgeryis complete, or that his name is listed in the General Surgery Specialist Register. The applicant satisfies this criteria since he obtained a certificate that he completed his practice in General Surgery in June 2010.
...........omissis...........
That Article 6(E) of the call for applications of July 2010 provides that the candidates have to have two years experience full time as specialists in General Surgery. The applicant satisfies this criterion.
That the grade of Specialistdoes not exist as a grade in the public medical sector. There exists only the grade of Resident Specialist.
...........omissis...........
That the applicant has been acknowledged by the respondent Commission as a Resident Specialist since 2007.
All this supports the legal interpretation of the respondent Commission that the applicant was not eligible as the two year experience requisite as a Specialist is ultra vires qua interpretation and mistaken.
............omissis...........
That the applicant qualifies according to the criteria as published in the notice because when he submitted his application he had less than three (3) experience in the sector.
That on the 15th December, 2011 the applicant personallyfiled a Warrant of Prohibitory Injunction number 1777/11 in order to safeguard his rights.
That by means of a judgement of the 11th May, 2012 the Honourable First Court Civil Court upheld the applicant’s demands for the issuing of a Warrant of Prohibitory Injunction against the respondent Commission.
That the applicant nomine Notary Marilena Cristina declares that she is authorised to declare these facts.
That the applicant has every interest to promote this lawsuit, and asked the Honourable Court First Hall:
1. To declare that the Commission acted ultra vires and furthermore in a mistaken manner when she interpreted the law.
2...........omissis...........
3 ...........omissis...........
4. Order the respondent Commissionto continue the selection process strictly according to the criteria published in the Notice of July 2010 for the post of Designate Consultant in terms of that decided in the third and fourth demand.
With costs against the respondent Commission.
3. That the Public Service Commission by means of a sworn application dated 31st July, 2012 pleaded that:
1. In the first place this Honourable Court does not have the competence ratione materiae in order to examine the work of the Public Service Commission, and this in terms of Article 115 of the Constitution of Malta.
2 ...........omissis...........
3...........omissis...........
4 ...........omissis...........
5 ...........omissis...........
6 ...........omissis...........
7 ...........omissis...........
8. That Doctor Cuschieri although he worked as a surgeon was duly registered till the date of the closure of the applications that is of the 13th August, 2010 and thus could not expect that he satifies the requisites of the relative call.
9 ...........omissis...........
10 ...........omissis...........
11 ...........omissis...........
12 ...........omissis...........
13 ...........omissis...........
14 ...........omissis...........
15. That it is clear that theCommission did not act in excess of the powers granted to it by law when it applied the provisions of the law which are very clear in their meaning, and do not require any interpretation.
16. That has also to be observed that without prejudice to the abovein case the first two demands of the applicant be upheld, the selection process for the post in question which was suspended by means of a Warrant of Prohibitory Injunction in the names Robert Cuschieri vs Public Service Commission, Warrant Number 1777/2011 which has been in force since 15th December, 2011 shall proceed as decided by Law.
...........omissis...........
Thus in view of the above, the Public Service Commission prays with respect that this Honourable Court rejects the applicant’s demands with costs against him.
4. That by means of their reply,the parties joined into the cause Dr Angela Sultana (ID 151366M), Dr Predrag Andrejevic (ID 171395M), and Dr Josephine Psaila (ID 120761M) pleaded that:
1. That the plaintiff’s demands are unfounded in fact and at law, and are to be rejected with costs.
2. That in its decision, the defendant commission proceed completely according to law.
3. .........omissis...........
4. ..........omissis...........
1. Thedemands of the plaintiffDr Robert Cuschieri in this cause are all unfounded in fact and at law and are to be rejected.
2. .........omissis...........
3. ..........omisiss...........
4. That on the of the closure of the applications, Dr Robert Cuschieri was not registered as a specialist whilst all the applicants had been so registered for various years.
5. According to Article 29 of Cap. 464 of the Laws of Malta, no one can exercise or practice as a specialist once he is not registered in the relative register of specialists.
6 ..........omissis...........
7. In the circumstances, the defendant Commission proceed completely according to law, and thusthe plaintiff’s demands are unfounded.
8. ..............omissis.............
6. That in virtue of a judgement given by the Honourable First Hall Civil Court on the 8th November, 2013 the Court decided.
...........omissis...........
With costs against the respondent Commission.
7. That this judgement appears to be based on these considerations on the part of the Honourable First Hall Civil Court.
(a) That the commission gave an interpretation of the word specialist in paragraph 6(e) ofthe call for application which goes against paragraph 6(d) of the same call.
(b) ...........omissis...........
(c) ...........omissis...........
(d) ...........omissis...........
(e) ...........omissis...........
8. That the appellant Commission does not agree with these considerations and with the conclusions of the Honourable First Hall Civil Court.
9. That the grievances of the appellant are clear and manifest, and consist in the following;
The First Grievance
10. That contrary to that concluded by the Honourable First Hall Civil Court there is no contradiction between paragraph (6d) and 6(e) of the call for applications.
11. .........omissis...........
12. That although according to Maltese Law and that of the European Union a specialist is to be enrolled in the Register of Specialists in Malta to work in Malta, a specialist who is qualified as such according to law in another country of the European Union should have the right to obtain registration automatically in Malta.
13. ..........omissis...........
14. ..........omissis...........
15. ..........omissis...........
16. ..........omissis...........
17, That this does not result only from the call for applications but from the law, this does not mean howeverthat there is an incompatibility between the call for applications and the law.
The Second Grievance
18. That the Honourable First Hall was mistaken when it assumed that it was the Commissionthat drew up the requisites in the call for applications.
19...........omissis...........
20...........omissis...........
21...........omissis...........
22...........omissis............
23. ..........omissis........
24. ..........omissis........
25. That thus it is clear that the selection criteria in the relative call were just and in conformity with the law, and the Commission was perfectly justified and completely within the limits of the powers granted to it inter alia by Article 110 of the Constitution when it gave instructions so thatthe Surgeon Cuschieri be considered as not conformingwith the requisites of Article 6(e) of the relative call.
The Third Grievance
26. That with the due respect towards the Honourable First Hall Civil Court, the latter argued badely when it concluded that the Commissionacted ultra vires and under panic when it gave a directive should that the experience required according to paragraph 6(e) of the call in the case of the applicant Robert Cuschieri have been considered in the Registration of Specialists according to the Health Care Professions Act (Article 9(1) of Cap 464).
27. ..........omissis...........
28. ..........omissis...........
The Fourth Grievance
29. That the Honourable First Hall Civil Court reached the wrong conclusion when it stated that the Commission should have annulled the selection process and made a fresh call for applications in the light of the objections of MAM and the parties called into the suit.
...........omissis...........
The FifthGrievance
31. That the applicant Surgeon Cuschieri could never have two years experience at the date of issueing of the application (on the 20th July, 2010) since he completed his apprenticeship locally only in 2009.
...........omissis...........
The Sixth Grievance
33. That with due respect the Honourable First Hall Civil Court cannot decided as it did by means its decision relative to the fourth demand of the applicant which partially upheld the criteria applicable to the selection processwithin a Parastatal Body, and decide when the experiencer of the applicantis to be considered as commencedwhen it concludedthat the experience is to be calculatedfrom a date subsequent to this judgement.
34. .........omissis...........
35. .........omissis...........
Thus, the Commission whilst referring to all the records of the proceedings and the proof produced reserves the right to bring forward further proof, and respectfully asks that this Honourable Court of Appeal to revoke and cancel the judgement given by this Honourable Court First Hall of the 8th November, 2013 by upholding this appeal and rejecting all the plaintiff’s demands, and uphold all the pleas of the appellant commission with the costs of both instances at the charge of the plaintiff.
Notify:Dr Robert Cuschieri, 16, Triq il-Grazzja, Żebbuġ, ZBG 1058.
Dr Josephine Psaila, ‘Peaceville’, 2, Triq Ġebel San Martin, Żejtun, ZTN 1585.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 891
891By means of an application filed in the Civil Court of Voluntary Jurisdiction Section, on the 14th May, 2014 Application number 441/2014 by Doris Mifsud,whereby she prayed that it be declared open in favour of Nicholas, Epifanio, Anthony, Maria Tanti, Rita, unmarried, the same Doris, unmarried, and Salvatore, all brothers and sisters Mifsud, and brothers and sisters of the decujus, and in favour of Nicholas Mifsud, son of the late Joseph and Charmaine Catania, daughter of the late George, and these in thequota of one ninth (1/9) undivided share each one of them the Succession of their sister Rosa Mifsud, unmarried,daughterof the late Pietro Mifsud and Carmela née Agius,born and resided in Siġġiewi, and died in Tal-Qroqq, limits of Imsida, on the 24th January, 2014 aged 78, intestate holding identity card number 837235(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