Mur Lura
Court Notices published in Govt. Gazette No. 19,295 of 12 August 2014
01/01/2014
Notice 1267
1267By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal, of the 4th July, 2014 the publication of the following extract was ordered for the purpose of service in terms of Article 187 (5) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12).
MB Distribution Limited (C 33398), of Testaferrata Street, Gżira,filed a Claim on the 21st March, 2014 whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Vittoriosa Gaming Ltd (C 27613), of25, Strait Street, Valletta,to pay the plaintiff company the sum of €469.36, which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With costs and legal interests.
The case (Claim Number 204/14GB) is deferred for the 26th September, 2014 at 12.30 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1268
1268By a decree given on the 23rd June, 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 17th June, 2014 by Bank of Valletta plc (C 2833), number 31/14 in the names Bank of Valletta plcvsAlfred Mallia et is being asked that the Court orders the Sale by Auction of:
The garage offficially numbered four (4), in Triq l-Artillieri, Żonqor, Marsaskala, underlying property of a third party, which garage is second from the corner named Triq Hurds Bank, free and ununcumbered,with all its rights and appurtenances, subject to conditions that it is not used for work or business that generate noise and keeping of animals to prevent nuisance to overlying occupants.
The said tenement is the property of Alfred Mallia and Jane Mallia.
Rudolph Marmarà
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1269
1269By a decree of the 4th August, 2014 given by the First Hall Civil Court, the Court ordered that the extract hereunder mentioned be published for the purpose of service according to Article 338 (1) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12).
That by application and a Schedule of set-off filed contemporaneously by Michael Portelli, on the 24th July, 2014 the approval of the said judicial acts is being demanded for the amount of €800 following judicial Sale by Auction 10/14 in the names Michael Portelli vs Miriam Ciantar, held under the Authority of the said Court on the 23rd July, 2014.
According to Article 338 (2) of Chapter 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.
Marvic Farrugia
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1270
1270NOTICE
CIVIL COURT, FIRST HALL
Whereas Mario Buhagiar filed an application under oath (No. 686/2014/LSO), demanding Correction in the Act of Birth number 4898/1954 in the Public Registry.
Whosoever may have an interest therein and wishes to oppose that demand, is hereby called upon to do so by means of a note to be filed in the Registry of these Courts within fifteen days from the day of the publication of this present notice in the Government Gazette.
Those who within the aforesaid time shall have filed such note, shall be notified by the service of a copy of the said application under oath of the day which will be appointed for the hearing of the case.
By order of the Court.
Josette Demicoli
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1271
1271By means of a decree given on the 27th June, 2014 by the Court of Appeal, in the records of the Appeal Application, in the names Advocate Christian Farrugia noe vs Director Civil Courts and Tribunals et, Application number 860/11 JPG, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent Josephine, sive Josette Faurè 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 Advocate Dr Christian Farrugia (ID 441363M) as special mandatary of the absent Antonius Kok (ID 0026286A) vs Director Civil Court and Tribunals, the Director General Courts, and Josephine, sive Josette Faurè for any interest she may have on the 22nd October, 2013 the applicant Advocate Dr Christian Farrugia nomine respectfully pleaded:
That this is an Appeal Application from a judgement in the names Advocate Dr Christian Farrugia (ID 441363M) as special mandatary of the absent Antonius Kok (ID 0026286A) vs Director Civil Courts, Director General Courts, and Josephine, sive Josette Faurè, for any interest she may have, dated 3rd October, 2013.
That by means of a Sworn Application filed on the 2nd September, 2011 the appellant premised that following a judgement given by this Honourable Court on the 30th June, 2011 in the cause in the names Antonius Kok vs Josephine, sive Josette Faurè (Application number 480/09), the respondent Registrar of Court issued the tax for fees and relative judicial expenses for the same cause. This tax was issued on the 4th August, 2011 that the merit of the cause mentioned consisted in a request for the payment of the sum of eight hundred fifty thousand, two hundred twenty-one Euro and twenty-nine cents (€850,221.29), which had been given by the interpellant by means of loan to the respondent Faurè so that she can buy property in Rabat.
...........omissis...........
That from the sworn reply to the applicant’s application,the respondent filed a counter-claim in virtue of which she asked this Honourable Court to declare that the amount of money mentioned in the contract of loan de quo was given to her by donation to buy property in Rabat, she asked also that it be declared that the loan contract dated 25th October, 2004 was a simulated donation.
That the appellant did not agree with the calculation worked out by the respondent the Registrar of Court of the relative fees for the counter-claim of the respondent Faurè, as in the opinion of the applicant,the method of calculation used for the taxing of the fees of the cause was erroneous and irregular, and the Registrar of Courts had to work out the taxand the fees of the counter-claim of the respondent Faurè in terms of Article 3 (3) of Tariff A of the Schedule A of Chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta. It was also premised that Article 3 (1) of Tariff A of Schedule Aof Chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta provides that when the registry fee can be taxed on the value established or a value that can be established according to law or from the deed itself, and the value of the counter-claim in the opinion of the applicantcan be easily established and determinedby the respondent Registrarby simple reference to the records of the cause which indicate clearly and manifestly the value of the donation alleged by the respondent.
...........omissis...........
That for the reasons premised, the appellant asked the Honourable First Court so that in terms of Article 64 of Chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta cancel and revoke the tax issued by the respondent Registrar of Court, on the 4th August, 2011 and order the taxing a new of the cause application number 480/09 according to law. With an order that the respondent Registrar of Court work out the fees and relative judicial expenses for the counter-claim of the respondent ad valorem on the sum of Euro 850,221.29.
That in virtue of a judgement given dated 3rd October, 2013.
That the appellant feels aggrieved by this judgement, and is filing an appeal therefrom, and the grievances are the following:
1. A wrong consideration of the nature of the taxed counter-claim.
2. Lack of consideration of Articles 3 (1) of tariff of Schedule A of Chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta and 735 (2) of Chapter 12.
1. The First Grievance
That a fol. 10 of the judgement,the Honourable First Court upheld that this demand by way of counter-claimwas limited only to the matter of interpretation of the nature of private writing of the 25th October, 2004 and this independently from the amounts indicated in the same writing.
That the counter claim of the respondent should in terms of Article 3 (3) of Tariff A of Schedule A of Chapter 12 be considered as a new request, and the fees are to be paid according to the counter-claim and the reply.
That with all respect,the counter claim of the respondent was not simply the determination of the nature of the contractbut outrightly she asked for a specific declaration so that the contract be declared invalid as a loan.
...........omissis...........
That as often upheld.
It is established that the taxation of judicial fees is upheld by the principle safeguarded by the principle that one looks at the request made or the judgement given when the sum is not determinable from the demand.
...........omissis...........
The Court continued to explain:
In the matter of taxation of judicial fees, the principle enunciated by way of maxim is that the taxation of judicial fees is regulated by the demand of judgement when the sum is not determined in the demand, is not inflexible but should be reasonably qualified as established by jurisprudence by the other principle that when ’il complesso del tema contenziosio’ or rather ‘massa litigiosa’,thereresultsthe value of theplaintiff’s claim, then the taxation shall be made on that value.
That unfortunately the Court of First Instance compared the acquistion of Euro 850,221.29 which the respondent demanded in her counter-claim with simple pecuniary or patrimonial interest which the respondent could have had in the counter-claim filed by her.
That it has to be underlined that the sum of Euro 850.221.29 was not simply a residual or secondary interest of the respondent, as the Court of First Instance seems to have suggested,but was outrightly a precise and determined sum regarding which the respondent askedto be confirmedin her favour so that the same respondent refund the same amount to the appellant.
That this is manifestly against the teaching of our Courts.
That from long established practice, taxation ad valorem is based on demands which bring about the pasage of monies and funds for the transfer of property and rights related to it. When a lawsuit does not fall within one of these categories which have been just mentioned, the taxation is generally made on the basis of a declaration.
...........omissis...........
That thus the dispute which the Court of First Instance was invited to resolve was not purely one of a legal nature and based on the interpretation of the provisions of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta, which regulate the taxation of costs and judicial and legal fees of causes decided by our Courts but on the contrary was intended so that the respondent acquire a determinate sum of money.
2. The Second Grievance
That the Second Grievance was based on the fact that the Court of First Instance ignored completely the regulations imposed by Article 3 (1) of Tariff A of Schedule A of Chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta.
That the said Article which does not permit creative interpretations provides that:
...........omissis...........
That even a cursory look at theprocedures taxed should have brought the Registrar and the Court of First Instance to the conclusion that the value of the counter-claims of the respondent Faurè was based on a determinable amount (a donation in the sum of Euro 850,221 and demand for the rescission of the agreement of loan for the same value), which could have been established from the act itself within the parameters of Article 3 (1) above mentioned.
That furthermore the value of the counter-claims of the respondent Faurè could have also been established according to law. Article 753 (2) of Cap. 12 which regulates the value of the cause for the purposes of determination of the competence ratione valoris provides.
When the demand is made to uphold or attack the obligation, the value is determined from the sum of the obligation.
That this means that in the case in question even with the application of this Article, the respondent Registrar could value the obligation which the respondent was trying to attack from the value of the loan claimed by the appellant in his demand.
The respondent Registrar had to tax the fees of the parties for the counter-claims of the respondent Faurè on this value.
Thus, and on the basis of the above, the appellant whilst referring to the above, asks this Honourable Court to cancel and revoke the judgement of the 3rd October, 2013 in the names Advocate Dr Christian Farrugia as special mandatary of the absent Antonius Kok vs Director Civil Courts, Tribunals Director General Courts, and Josephine, sive Josette Faurè, for any interest she may have as demanded in this application. With costs of both instances against the respondents.
Notify: Josephine, sive Josette Faurè,Verdala Mansions, Port A, Vilhena, 34, Inguanez Street, Rabat.
Josephine, sive Josette Faurè, 92, Block 17, Portomaso, New Street in Church Street, Paceville.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1272
1272IT IS BEING NOTIFIED that by a decree dated 4th July, 2014 given by the Criminal Court (Judge Dr Lawrence Quintano BA LLD), after an application filed by Jason Caruana on the 2nd July, 2014 Compilation number 1417/2007 in the case:
The Police
(Inspector Louise Calleja)
Versus:
JASON CARUANA, 33 years, son of George and Bernardette née Magro, born in Pietà, on the 6th September, 1980 and residing at Flat 3, ‘Paris Flats’, Triq id-Dielja, Qormi, and holder of identity card bearing number 413180(M);
ACCEDED to the request of Jason Caruana who is hereby authorised to appear on the contract of sale of the immovable Ben Gorg, 11, Triq Tal-Blat, Housing Estate, Qormi, to sell his share of one eleventh of the same. The Notary publishing the deed must deposit the share of the payment due to the accused into a frozen bank account in the name of the accused and if no such bank account exists, under the authority of the Court.
The publication of this order is being published in terms of Article 23A of the Criminal Code, Chapter 9 of the Laws of Malta, following another publication made on the 20th November, 2007 where the Court ordered the attachment in the hands of third parties in a general manner all monies and other movable and immovable property which may be due to, or belonging to Jason Caruana.
DR John Seychell Navarro
Dip. Hlth Science, Dip. Mgmt Stud., Dip. Not. Pub., LLB LLD
Assistant Registrar Criminal Courts and Criminal Tribunals
Notice 1273
1273IT IS BEING NOTIFIED that by a decree of the 15th July, 2014 given by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Inquiry - (Magistrate Dott. Clare Stafrace Zammit LLD), after an application filed on the 15th July, 2014 (Compilation number 207/2012) in the case:
The Police
(Inspector Fabian Fleri)
Versus:
GORDON ZAMMIT, 38 years, Architect, son of Carmel and Valerie née Meli, born in Ħ’Attard, on the 9th of July, 1976 and residing at 134A, Flat 3, Triq it-Torri, Sliema, andholder of identity card number 350876(M);
CLARIFIED that Gordon Zammit can withdraw the sum of thirteen thousand, nine hundred and seventy-six Euro and twenty-four cents (€13,976.24) yearly from his bank account held at HSBC savings account number 013-076344-050;
The publication of this order is being published in terms of Article 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Chapter 373 of the Laws of Malta and Article 23A of the Criminal Code, Chapter 9 of the Laws of Malta, after a publication of the 2nd July, 2013 following a decree given by the same Court on the 24th June, 2013 where the Court clarified that Gordon Zammit is to withdraw the sum of thirteen thousand, nine hundred and seventy-six Euro and twenty-four cents (€13,976.24) yearly in terms of Article 5 (1) of Chapter 373 of the Laws of Malta after a publication of the 22nd June, 2012 following a decree given by the same Court given on the 18th June, 2012 where the Court acceded to the request and authorised Gordon Zammit to withdraw the sum of thirteen thousand, nine hundred and seventy-six Euro and twenty-four cents(€13,976.24) for the year 2012,following another publication made on the 28th February, 2012 after a decree of the same Court given on the 22nd February, 2012 whereas the Court ordered the attachment in the hands of third parties in a general manner of all monies and of other movable and immovable property which may be due to, or belonging to Gordon Zammit.
Dr John Seychell Navarro
Dip. Hlth Science, Dip. Mgmt Stud, Dip. Not. Pub. LLB, LLD
Assistant Registrar Criminal Courts and Criminal Tribunals