Mur Lura
Court Notices published in Govt. Gazette No. 19,314 of 23 September 2014
01/01/2014
Notice 1463
1463By means of a decree given on the 2nd September, 2014 by the Court of Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction), in the records of the Appeal Appplication, in the names Citadel Insurance plc noe et vs Anthony Mizzi, Application number 90/10 FDP, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent Anthony Mizzi in terms of Article 187 (3) et. seq. of Cap. 12.
By means of an Appeal Application filed in the Court of Appeal, Application Number 90/10 FDP, in the names Citadel Insurance plc (C 21550), as subrogated by policy and by law in the rights of its insured Mario Difesa, and the same Mario Difesa (ID 333055M) vs Anthony Mizzi, on the 28th January, 2014 the applicant Citadel Insurance plc (C 21550) as subrogated by policy and by law in the rights of its insured Mario Difesa and the same Mario Difesa (ID 333055M) humbly pleaded:
That by means of the present lawsuit, the applicants asked that the respondent be condemned to pay the applicants the sum of (€4,378.35) or more correct sum, as compensation for the damages caused in thepremises Flat 6, Lockstone Court, Windsor Terrace, Sliema, property of Mario Difesa, which damage was caused solely due to the fault of the respondent Anthony Mizzi.
That to the said demands, the respondent answeredin the first place the following:
(i) The invalidity of the notification of the cause as it was not made at the address of the ordinary residence of the respondent in violation of Art. 187 (3) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure.
(ii) the nullity of the application as his wife Edna Mizzi was not sued despite the property being part of the community of acquests.
(iii) the prescriptionof the action dueto the passage of two years in terms of Art. 2153 of the Civil Code (Cap. 16) of the Laws of Malta).
(iv) the action cannot succeed as property overlying that merit of the cause does not belong anymoreto the respondents.
(v) the desertion of the action in terms of Art. 963 of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12of the Laws of Malta).
That by means of a judgement dated 13th January, 2014 the Honourable Court of Magistrates (Malta), decided the cause by rejecting the first, the secondand fifth plea brought forward by the respondent, and upheld the third and fourth plea of the respondent, and thus rejected all the applicant’s demands.
...........omissis...........
That the applicants felt aggrieved by the above mentioned judgement and are humbly filing this appeal therefrom.
That the facts of the cause can be listed in brief in the following:
(1) That the premises, or rather Flat 6, at the address Lockstone Court, Windsor Terrace, Sliema, property of Mario Difesa suffered damages as a consequence ofthe flooding from the overlying premises, which at that time was the property of the respondent Anthony Mizzi.
(2) That the damages amount to the sum of (€4,378.35).
(3) That such damages were covered by the applicant company in view of the relative insurance policy.
(4) That following the payment of the said damages and the consequent subrogation, the applicants proceeded against the respondent for the compensation due.
That the grievances are clear and manifest and consist in the following:
Regarding the Third Plea.
(1)That the third plea which was upheld by the Honourable First Court is that of prescription.
‘As it results that the present lawsuit was instituted on the 16th March, 2010 and the respondent acknowledged service of the Notice on the 23rd May, 2013 it results proved that the period of two years set down by Article 2152 in the cause of damages lapsed, and thus the plea brought forward by the respondents merits to be upheld’.
(2) Thus with the respect due such argument it can hardly be said that this reflects that required by law for the purpose of the passage of the prescriptive period. It is in fact known that the period of prescription commences to run from the date of the event causing the damage and in fact is interrupted by the procedure instituted, and this irrespective of the date when the respondent is notified with such procedure.
...........omissis...........
(3) That it is uncontested that the damages were suffered by the applicant Difesa during the month of April of the year 2008. It is uncontested also and otherwise evident also from the records of the present cause that this lawsuit was institued on the 16th March, 2010 and namely before the passage of the years set down by Art. 2153 of the Civil Code.
(5) That from the strictly legal aspect reference is also to be made to that which has been on various occasions decided by our Courts even in the context of that which distinguishes a judicial letter from a writ of summonsor applicationin virtue of which legal procedures were commenced. Thus amongst others by means of the cause in the names ‘AIC Joseph Sultana v Ronald Gaerty’, it was decided by the Honourasble Court of Appeal (Superior Jurisdiction) on the first April, 2005 that:
(8) The crux of the matter is infact whether there is a difference for the purposes of legal effect between a judicial letter sent specifically to notify the debtorand at the same time interrupt prescription and a writ of summons made following that notification.
This point was by now defined by a number ofconcordant decisions to each other which decisions conform to that submitted by the appellant, and contrary to that decided inthe judgement appealed.
(9) Thus amongst others in the decision given by this Court as differently presided, dated 3rd March, 1995 in the cause in the names ‘Dr E Woods noe vs D Jones et noe’, it was upheld so:
‘That Article 2130 of Cap. 16 is not applicable to the deed of Writ of Summons as this act constitutes a ‘judicial demand’ in terms of Articles 2131 and 2132of the Civil Code. The prescription inquestionwas interrupted as soon as the judicial summons of the plaintiff nomine was made with filing of the present writ of summons.
The Court makes referrence to the judgement given by this Court as differently presided but differently composed in the cause Briffa vs Debono, decided on the 7th July, 1992 where a distinction was made between the act of renewal (such as the judicial letter or the protest), and its executive act (such as the writ of summons).
(10) This Court agrees completely with this teaching, and is thus upholding the plaintiff’s appeal under this aspectas it is of the opinion that his grievance is legally founded.
(6) That thus in regard to the third plea,the principal grievance of the applicant results from the distinction in the humble opinion of the appellants which is to be made between a judicial act which is sent with the purpose to interrupt prescriptionand another judicial act (writ of summons)which is made against the debtor as proper executing of the action subject to prescription. According to the interpellantthe terms mentioned in the law including Art. 2153 of the Civil Code do not remain in force on the filing of the writ of summons. Thus, it is upheld that once the right of action is availed of every consideration of prescriptionfalls.
Regarding the Fourth Plea.
(7) That as regards the fourth plea that which brought about the Honourable First Court to uphold such plea was only the fact that according to the contract of sale presented by the same respondentwhen the cause was institutedthe respondents were not the owners of the premiseswhere the respondent was being notified and from where presumibly the damage was caused.
(8) That in the said context what is relevant with the utmost respect is not what happened after the occurrenceofthe damaging event including any sale of property on the part of the respondents, but who effectively caused the damage as alleged by the applicants. It is clear that the present cause is addressed to the respondentin so far as the allegation on the merit is that it was he who caused the damage in the premises ‘ de quo’.
...........omissis...........
In this context reference is being made to the fact that the second plea brought forward by the same respondent was not upheld by the Honourable First Court. This plea refers to the necessity or not that there be called into these procedures the wife of the respondent. In regard to such plea, the Honourable First Court justly concluded that there was not such necessityin so far as the action filedby the applicant does not fall in any manner in one of the extraordinary actions and which thus requirethat both spouses are summoned. Justly thus keeping in view that the action is one for compensation of the damages suffered by the person who suffered the damages against the person who caused such damage.
(9) That keeping in view the above and the nature of the present action as an action for damages,as the action is not an extraordinary action that requires the respondent’s wife as co-owner and administrastor of the community of acquests can in no way be affectedif after the occurrence of the damaging event the overlying propertythat ‘de quo’was sold by the same respondent.
(10) That the Honourable Court of First Instancein this context refers also to the factthatfrom nowheredoes it result when the said incident took place. Althoughit is the case that the applicants are of the humble opinionthat such proof had to be made in the context of the two pleaswhich were upheldby othersexcept the respondenthimselfwho amongstothers was alleging that the action is one of prescription andthe action is null because he had sold the premises ...omissis... In default of proofregarding the moment when the damaging event took place certainly the two pleas as brought forward by the respondent should not have been upheld.
(11) That it is uncontested between the parties that the damage in the premises ‘de quo’ took place in April 2008, it results most clearly not only that the prescriptiveperiod was interrupted by the present cause but also during the moment when the damage in the premises ‘de quo’ was caused the same respondent was in effect responsiblein so far as owner of the same.
(12) That thus the third and fourth pleas are to be trejcted and the cause sent back before the Honourable First Court so that the hearing on the merit of the present cause be heard.
Thus, the applicants humbly pray that this Honourable Court, whilst confirming the judgement appealed dated thirteenth (13) of January, 2014 in the same names above referred to as demanded in this application, with the costs relating to the pleas above referred to and the present procedure to be borne by the respondent.
Notify: Anthony Mizzi, Flat 8, Lockstone Court, Windsor Terrace, Sliema.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1464
1464By means of an application filed in the Civil Court of Voluntary Jurisdiction Section, on the 25th August, 2014, Application number 768/2014 by Antoine Marcel Pace Asciak nomine, whereby he prayed that it be declared open infavour of Victoria, Lucienne Weeks and Christopher, all brothers and sisters Galea, nephews and nieces of the decujus, and this in the quota of one third (1/3) undivided share each one of them, the Succession ofJolanda Galea, unmarried, daughter of the late Germano Galea and Vittoria née Borg, born in Sliema and was undercare at Mount Carmel, Attard, and died in Tal-Qroqq, limits of Imsida, on the 27th March, 2014 aged 87, holding identity card number 640226(M) 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 1465
1465By means of an application filed in the Civil Court of Voluntary Jurisdiction Section, on the 21st July, 2014, Application number 677/2014 by Edward De Gray, whereby he prayed that it be declared open infavour of John, the same Edward, Victor and Dorothy Pace, all brothers and sisters De Gray, and brothers and sisters of the decujus, and this in the quota of one sixth (1/6) undivided part each one of them in favour of David, Robert, Brian, Loraine Calleja and Caroline Portelli, all brothers and sisters De Gray, children of the late Anthony, the latter brother of the decujus, and this in the quota of one sixth (1/6) undivided share equally between them, and in favour of Philip, Christopher and Simon, all brothers De Gray, children of the late Charles De Gray, the latter brother of the decujus, and this in the quota of one sixth (1/6) undivided share equally between them,the Succession of Elizabeth De Gray, unmarried, daughter of the late Victor Cyril De Gray and Mary Concetta née Frendo, born in Żebbuġ, Malta, and resided in Paola, where she died on the 13th July, 2012 aged 69, intestate, holding identity card number 277643(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 1466
1466By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal, of the 15th November, 2013, the publication of the following extract was ordered for the purpose of service in terms of Article 187 (3) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12).
F (Advertising) Ltd (C 27689), of Auberge San Anton, Block B, Old Railway Street, Balzan, filed a Claim on the 18th September, 2013, whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Massimo Lovegrove, ofBlock C, Flat 14, Bertha Street, KHG, Ta’ Giorni,to pay the plaintiff company the sum of€3,262 which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With costs and legal interests.
The case (Claim Number 538/13GB) is deferred for the 3rd October, 2014 at 12.30 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1467
1467By a decree given by the Civil Court First Hall,on the 18th September, 2014, on the application of Bank of Valletta plc, Monday, 27th October, 2014 at eleven in the morning,has been fixed for the Sale by Auction to be held on the first floor of these Courts of Justice, Republic Street, Valletta, of the following items seized from the property of Alexander Briffa (ID 543265M) and Lorenza Briffa (ID 156868M).
Life policy number EPSTF 45246N issued by Middle Sea Valletta Life Assurance Company Limited.
N.B. The said policy will be sold as described in the acts of the file number 15/14.
Marvic Farrugia
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1468
1468By a decree of the 15th September, 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 HSBC Bank Malta plc on the 12th September, 2014, the approval of the said judicial acts is being demanded for the amount of following €300,000 judicial Sale by Auction 83/13 in the names HSBC Bank Malta plc vs Gheiti & Sons Limited, held under the Authority of the said Court on the 9th September, 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
Bann for Curators
1469By a decree of the Courts of Magistrates (Malta), of the 3rd September, 2014, the publication of the following bann which appears hereunder was ordered for the purpose of service in terms of Article 931 (3) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12).
Republic of Malta
To the Court Marshall
By a decree given by the Courts of Magistrates (Malta) on an application of Alliance Trust Company Limited,it was ordered the selection of Deputy Curators for and on behalf of Notexx Limited in the Application number 297/14,and in other relative and subsequent acts demanded:
That the defandant company be condemned to pay the sum of €4,956.57 representing the Annual Management Fees rendered to you by the applicant company in terms ofthe invoice here attached as Dok. ATC2 001, with interest till the date of effective payment and with costs.
Plaintiff:Alliance Trust Company Limited of Tower Business Centre, Level 1, Tower Street, Swatar BKR 4013.
You are ordered to inform everyone that should no one come forward within the time stipulated by the Court will proceed in order to choose whosoever wishes to act as curator to appear before this Registry within four days, and by means of a minute to submit a declaration that he wishes so to act.
You are also ordered to inform every one that if he fails to make this declaration within the stipulated time, this Court will proceed to the selection of curators of office.
After so acting, or if you should encounter any difficulty in the execution of the said bann, you are to inform forthwith this Court.
Given by the aforementioned Courts of Magistrates (Malta), with the witness of Dr Marseann Farrugia,Doctor of Laws, Magistrate of the above mentioned Court.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1470
1470By means of a decree given by the Courts of Magistrates (Malta), on the 6th March, 2014, in the records of the judicial letter number 2055/14, in the names Satariano Design Concept Ltd vs Jeremy Perici Calascione, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of effecting service on the respondent in terms of Article 187 (3) of Cap. 12.
By means of a judicial letter filed in the Courts of Magistrates (Malta) against Jeremy Perici Calascione(ID 516485M), of237B, Main Street, Balzan,on the 8th July, 2013,Satariano Design Concept Ltd(C 2643), of 122, Msida Valley Road, Birkirkara, refers to the bill of exchange in the amount of€6,713 duly accepted and lapsed on the 1st September, 2011, which bill of exchange is being here attached and marked as document A.
The said bill of exchange is till today not paid in full, and the amount of€5,388 is due, and this as results from the invoice which is being here attached and marked as document B, besides the commercial interests.
The interpellant company calls upon you so that immediately you pay the amount of €5,388, and also the commercial interest from the date of the expiry of the same bill of exchange till the date of effective payment.
In default, the applicant will proceed against you further in Court without further notice including the issue of any opportune warrant.
This letter is being filed for all purposes and effects of law, and especially to render executable the said bill of exchange, regarding the amount due as above mentioned, and this in terms of Article 256 (2) of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta.
You are also being informed, and this in terms of the proviso of paragraph (e) of Article 253 of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta, that you can, by means of an application that has to be done within twenty (20) days from the date ofservice of this judicial letter, pray the competent Court to suspend the execution of the bill of exchange above mentioned, in whole or in part,and this on the basis that you oppose the execution of the said bill of exchange because the signature on the bill of exchange is not yours or of your mandatary, or if you have grave or valid reasons to oppose such execution.
With costs.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1471
1471By means of a decree of the 11th September, 2014, in the First Hall of the Civil Courts,in the records of the judicial letter number 490/14 in the names Bank of Valletta plc vsMaray & Grant 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 Maray & Grant Limited (C 3988), ofThe Cobbles, 186, St Philip Street, Birzebbuġa, on the 17th February, 2014, Bank of Valletta plc of 1/5, Misraħ San Ġorg, Valletta VLT 1190,calls upon you so that within two days you pay the sum of €1,693,373.87 balance of debt in your Loan Accounts with Bank of Valletta plctogetherwith further interests from the 3rd October, 2011, till the date ofeffective payment.
This calling is being made for all intents and purposes of law and particularly, but not exclusively, in order to render executivable the contract of costitution of debt in the acts of Notary Dottor Rachel Mallia, dated 3rd October, 2011, where you you constituted yourself certain, liquid and true debtor in the sum of €1,693,373.87 together with further interest from the 3rd October, 2011, till the date of effective payment.
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 1472
1472NOTICE
CIVIL COURT (FAMILY SECTION)
Whereas the plaintiff Gordon Schembri (ID No 207386M), filed an application under oath (No. 183/14 RGM) demanding Correction in the Act of Birth of the minor child Kai Cucciardi, number 4176/2009 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.
Cora Azzopardi
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1473
1473By a decree given by the Civil Court First Hall, on the 3rd September, 2014, on the application of Cumbo Lawrence et, on Dr Anthony Cutajar’s request, Tuesday, 4th November, 2014 at eleven in the morning, has been fixed for the Sale by Auction to be held on the first floor of these Law Courts,Republic Street, Valletta, of the following property:
The tenement numbered 21, ‘Charmaine’, St Anthony Street, Fgura, including its airspace, with the drains and drainage system in common with the underlying tenement, subject to the active and passive servitudes resulting from its relative position, with all its rights and appurtenances, valued at one hundred and forty-two thousand Euro (€142,000).
The said tenement is the property of Francis Degiorgio (ID 263843M), and by a decree of 10th April, 2014, nominated curators Dr Anthony Cutajar and Mario Mifsud Bonnici LP.
N.B. The said tenement will be sold as described in the acts of file number 89/10.
Marvic Farrugia
For the Registrar Civil Court and Tribunals
Notice 1474
1474B’sentenza mogħtija mill-Qorti Ċivili Prim’ Awla, fis-16 ta’ Mejju, 2014, f’Rikors numru 647/1998 AE, fl-ismijiet Michael Lungaro et vs Salvino Lungaro et, ġie ffissat il-jum tal-Ħamis, 30 ta’ Ottubru, 2014 fl-għaxra u nofs ta’ filgħodu, għall-Bejgħ bl-Irkant li għandu jsir fl-ewwel sular ta’ dawn il-Qrati tal-Ġustizzja, Triq ir-Repubblika, Il-Belt Valletta, tal-fond hawn taħt deskritt:
Il-fond ‘Jampson’, bin-numru tnejn u għoxrin (22), fi Triq Antonio Micallef, Żejtun, stmat li jiswa mitejn tnejn u għoxrin elf u mitt Ewro (€222,100), u l-fond numru tnejn (2), fi Triq San Franġisk, Żejtun, stmat li jiswa tnejn u ħamsin elf Ewro (€52,000).
aL-imsemmi fond huwa proprjetà ta’ Michael, Emanuel, Salvino, Paul u Anthony, aħwa Lungaro.
N.B. L-imsemmi fondi jinbiegħ bħalma ġie deskritt fl-atti tas-sentenza mogħtija fis-27 ta’ Jannar, 2014, u fl-atti tas-subbasta numru 3/14.
Reġistru tal-Qrati Superjuri, illum il-Ġimgħa, 19 ta’ Settembru, 2014.
Marvic Farrugia
Għar-Reġistratur tal-Qrati Ċivili u Tribunali
Notice 1475
1475Permezz ta’ digriet mogħti fis-7 ta’ Awwissu, 2014 mill-Qorti Ċivili Prim’Awla, fl-atti tal-ittra uffiċjali numru 2317/14, fl-ismijiet l-Avukat Paul Caruana Curran et vs Stefan Bezzina, ordnat is-segwenti pubblikazzjoni biex isservi ta’ notifika fil-konfront tal-intimat a tenur tal-Artikolu 187 (3) tal-Kap. 12.
Fil-Prim’Awla tal-Qorti Ċivili, illum 24 ta’ Lulju, 2014.
Lil: Stefan Bezzina, ta’ North Side, Flat 7, Triq Vitale, Mġarr.
Permezz tal-preżenti, l-Avukat Paul Caruana Curran BA (Hons), MA (Byz St) (Birm) LLD,Alfred Cachia, Elisa Attard u Chris Diamantino kollha jippossjedu appartament mill-blokka li jisimha Haven Lodge, li tinsab fi Triq Luigi Apap, San Ġiljan.
Kull mittenti jippossjedi wieħed mill-appartmenti tal-blokka u jidher li int bi ħsiebek li fil-partijiet komuni tikkonverti tieqa f’bieb.
Il-mittenti joġġezzjonaw għal dan l-aġir tiegħek, u dan billi ma għandekx dritt tagħmel tali użu mill-partijiet komuni.
Għaldaqstant, int mitlub sabiex tiddesisti milli tagħmel tali tibdil, u fin-nuqqas milli tikkonforma ruħek mal-kontenut ta’ din l-ittra, il-klijenti tiegħi ma jkollhomx triq oħra għajr li jipproċedu kontra tiegħek skont il-liġi.
Tant biex tagħraf timxi u bl-ispejjeż.
Mittenti:Flat 8, Haven Lodge, Triq Luigi Apap, San Ġiljan.
Reġistru tal-Qrati Superjuri, illum 19 ta’ Settembru, 2014.
Alexandra Debattista
Għar-Reġistratur tal-Qrati Ċivili u Tribunali