Court Notices published in Govt. Gazette No. 19,387 of 27 February 2015

Republic of Malta

To The Marshall of the Court

By means of a decree by this Court, on the 5th February, 2015, following a request of Chiranai Somkaew, it was ordered that Deputy Curators be chosen to represent the absent Charnkai Thongsri, in the records of the General Application 14/15 AL, in the names, Chiranai Somkaew vsDeputy Curators, and in the relevant and subsequent acts.

By means of an Urgent Application filed in the Civil Court (Family Section), in the names, Chiranai Somkaew vs Deputy Curators, on the 21st January, 2015, the applicant Chiranai Somkaew (Residence permit number 0102567A), premised and asked:

That the applicant is a Thai National, and has resided in Malta for more than two years.

That on Tuesday, 13th January, 2015, her minor daughter ...omissis... aged eleven arrived in Malta to start residing with her mother permanently at the address 5, Triq ir-Raħħala, Manikata, Mellieħa.

That the applicant is the only parent who has paternal authority over the minor ...omissis...

That the father of the minor Charnkai Thongsri has been absent from her life for more than five years.

That the applicant wishes to register her daughter in a school in Malta but it was not possible because she was asked for the father’s written consent.

Thus for the reasons brought forward, the applicant humbly asks this Honourable Court that she be authorised to register the minor ...omissis... in a Maltese school without the authorisation of the minor’s father, and this in the best interest of the minor.

You are therefore ordered to post a copy of these banns in the entrance of the Superior Courts, and call upon whosever wishes to act as curator to appear within four days in this Registry, and file a note with a declaration that he is prepared to act as such.

You are also ordered to inform each one that if he fails to make this declaration within the stipulated time, the Court will proceed to the selection of Curators of Office.

And after so acting, or if you should encounter any difficulty in the execution of this bann, you are to inform forthwith this Court.

Given by the Civil Court (Family Section) above mentioned with the witness of the Hon. Mr Justice Silvio Meli, LLD, Doctor of Laws.

Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD

For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals

NOTICE

CIVIL COURT, FIRST HALL

Whereas Kurt Camilleri Burlò (ID No. 345580M), filed an application under oath (No. 167/2015/LSO), demanding Correction in the Act of Birth number 1585/2014 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

By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal, of the 3rd February, 2015, 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).

Dr Carol Peralta, LLD, (ID 661152M), of 23, Mesquita Square, Imdina, filed a Claim, on the 22nd December, 2014, whereby he asked the Tribunal to condemn Emil Thidell (ID 61985A), of6/6, Ir-Rampa ta’ San Ġiljan, San Ġiljan, to pay the plaintiffthe sum of€2,643.35 which amount is due to the plaintiff.

With costs and interests.

The case (Claim Number 808/14YMS) is deferred for the 5th March, 2015 at 12.30 p.m.

Alexandra Debattista

For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals

By a decree of the 18th December, 2014, given 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).

That by an application filed by the Bank of Valletta plc (C 2833), on the 15th July, 2014, is asking for the withdrawal of the amount of €52,797.81 deposited by Schedule of Deposit number 1146/13 lodged by Joseph Balzan (ID 333867M), and Jacqueline Balzan (ID 42271M), after the Sale by Auction 22/11. The Court ordered the notification of this application to the interested parties with a twenty day period to reply.

MARVIC FARRUGIA

For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals

By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal, of the 6th January, 2015, 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).

Vodafone Malta Limited (C 10865), of Skyparks Business Centre, Malta International Airport, Ħal Luqa LQA 4000, filed a Claim, on the 26th November, 2014, whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Jean-Louis Fenech (ID 407595M), of 77, Edwidgeville, Triq is-Sienja, Ħ’Attard, to pay the plaintiff company the sum of €2,697.03 which amount is due to the plaintiff company.

With costs and legal interests.

The case (Claim Number 771/14KPS) is deferred for the 3rd March, 2015 at 12.30 p.m.

Alexandra Debattista

For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree given by the Court of Appeal, in the records of the Appeal Application, in the names Anthony Chetcuti vs Mary Cortis et, application number 867/10 SM, on the 21st November, 2014, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondents Anthony and Louis Chetcuti in terms of Article 187 (3) et. seq. of Cap. 12.

By means of an Application filed in the Court of Appeal, filed in the Sworn Application number 867/10 SM, Decided 25th March, 2014, Chetcuti Anthony (ID 271260M) and Louis Chetcuti (ID 141763M) vs Cortis Mary (ID 181136M) and Paul Chetcuti (ID 318870M) or either of whom, on the 11th April, 2014, the applicant Mary Cortis and Paul Chetcuti respectfully pleaded:

1. That in virtue of their orginal application, the plaintiffs today respondents premised the following:

1. That through two (2) wills dated 15th August, 1987, and 15th March, 1988, both in the records ofNotary Dr Joseph Henry Sciriha, Joseph Chetcuti, father of the applicant and the respondent Paul Chetcuti who is also the husband of the other respondent Mary Cortis had left the usufruct of one-fourth of the premises ‘Assisi’, Triq it-Tajjar, Imsida, in favour of the widow Mary Cortis, and left the legacy in parte da cosa altruias the same premises belonged to thecommunity of acquestsbetween him and the respondent Mary Cortis of the right of habitation of the same premises above referred to those of his children who may be unmarried on the date of his death.

2. That the same Joseph Chetcuti appointed as his universal heirs in equal shares each one of his four children, Paul, Anthony, Louis and Victoria Chetcuti.

3. That the father Joseph Chetcuti died on the 13th April, 1991.

4. That thus, the applicants are the owners of one fourth undivided share each of the inheritance of the said Joseph Chetcuti, including one half undivided of the premises above referred to.

5. That the respondent Paul Chetcuti remained unmarried and continued to reside in the same premises above indicated in virtue of the right of habitation he enjoys.

6. That about two years ago, Mary Cortis left the said premises.

7. That consequently the respondent Paul Chetcuti is residing alone in the said premises.

8. That by means of the application number PA 04477/09, the Environment and Planning Authority issued a permit in favour of the respondent Mary Cortis ‘to carry out internal and external alterations to existing dwelling and erect two new floors’.

9. That in virtue of a sworn application number 20/2010, presently pending before the First Hall Civil Court, the respondent Paul Chetcuti asked for the partition of the property both against his siblings and against the respondent Mary Cortis.

10. That recently, the respondents or either of them illegally and abusively began or appointed third parties to commence structural works on the premises in question.

11. That the applicants objected to such changes in the premises in question since it is being made by the co-owners Paul Chetcuti and Mary Cortis or either of them without the consent of the applicants.

12. ...........omissis...........

13. That by means of a decree dated 12th August, 2010, the Court upheld the applicant’s request for the issuing of a warrant of prohibitory injunction against the respondents.

That thus, the Honourable Court of First Instance was humbly asked to:

1. Declare that the applicants are co-heirs and co-owners of the estate of Anthony (recte Joseph Chetcuti),which includes the premises with the name ‘Assisi’, Triq it-Tajjar, Imsida.

2. Declare that the respondents Paul Chetcuti and Mary Cortis or either of whom do not have the right to do these changes in the said premises since there is not the applicants’ consent.

3. ...........omissis...........

4. ...........omissis...........

5. ...........omissis...........

6. With costs against the respondents or either of whom including those of the warant of prohibitory injunction above referred to.

2. That by means of a their sworn reply, the respondents today appellants pleaded the following:

1. In the first place, the proceedings are not complete since the parties’ sister Victoria Chetcuti who has an actual interest is not part of the cause.

2. ...........omissis...........

3. ...........omissis...........

4. That the applicants’ third request cannot be upheld since it is impossible that the applicants themselves caused the problem encountered by means of the warrant of prohibitory injunction above referred to.

5. ...........omissis...........

6. ...........omissis...........

7. ...........omissis...........

8. Saving further pleas.

3. That by means of a judgement dated 25th March, 2014, the Honourable Court of First Instance upheld all the plaintiff’s requests, and consequently rejected all the pleas of the respondents (today appellants).

...........omissis...........

4. That the applicants felt aggrieved by this judgement, and thus by means of the present they are filing this humble appeal from the same decision before this Honourable Court.

5. The First Grievance

That the first grievance is clear and manifest, and consists in the nullity of the same decision here appealed on the basis of the fact that the Honourable First Court failed to take cognizance of the first plea of the same applicants, and namely the plea that the proceedings were not complete.

...........omissis...........

In the present case notwithstanding the requirement of the presence of Victoria Chetcuti,no request on the part of the plaintiff was made so that the party be joined in the suit, and thus rectify her default. The Honourable Court of First Instance went further by completely putting aside this default and does not mention anything about it. With the present result remaining that the proceedings are not complete but at the same timethe Honourable Court of First Instance did not take any decision about the same.

That the applicants humbly point out that in case that this Honourable Court upholds this first grievance (as the applicants humbly submit), than this Honourable Court is to send back the records before the Honourable Court of First Instance in order that this point is decided.

6. The Second Grievance

That without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that the second grievance is also clear and manifest, and consists in the fact that the Honourable First Court was legally and factually wrong when it failed to take cognizance of various proof, facts and arguments which the applicants brought forward and which fall in the ambit of their pleas, which default brought about a manifest injustice against the applicants.

That from the reasoning of the judgement hereby appealed, it appears that the Honourable Court of First Instance only considered the argument of the applicants regarding the dangerous state of the premises is not a justification to their request.

...........omissis...........

That it has to be stated that the applicant Paul Chetcuti was the only one of his children who was unmarried whowas vested with the right of habitation of the premises de quo as contemplated in the will of his father Joseph Chetcuti. In the meantime, in view ofthe precarious and uninhabitable condition in which the premises was Paul Chetcuti took the initiative and responsibility to carry out the structural works of an urgent nature ...omissis... which works were carried with the authorisation of the respondent Mary Cortis or rather the wife of the decujus Joseph Chetcuti and covered by means of a development permit.It was exactly due to the lack of cooperation on the part of his siblings he had to take some form of concrete measure to see that the premises in question does not deteriorate completely.

The Honourable First Court failed to consider also the fact that in reality, the complaint of the applicants does not result as the value of the same premises increased, and consequently the applicants’ sharefrom the inheritance (as well as that of their sister who is not part of the cause) increased.

...........omissis...........

That the Honourable Court of First Instance put aside all together the argument brought by the applicant Paul Chetcuti that he lives in the same premisesmerit of the cause in virtue of a right of habitation left by his father by means of the wills mentioned above.

...........omissis...........

That thus in view of that above brought forward, it results most clearly that the Honourable First Court relied only on the proof and arguments brought by the applicants (today appellants), whilst it put aside altogether the proof brought by the applicants which in their totality show that in the first place there was justification for such works.

...........omissis...........

7. The Third Grievance

That without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that the third grievance is also clear and manifest, and consists in the fact that the Honourable Court was legally and factually mistaken when it reached the conclusion that the works in question were made against the law and in specific violation ofArticle 493 of Cap. 16 of the Laws of Malta.

That from the proof produced during the present cause, it results clearly and unequivocally that the works carried out by the applicants are legal in the sense that they are covered and carried out according to a development permission.

That furthermore the works carried out by the applicants or either of whom respect the provisions of Article491 of the Civil Code, Cap. 16 of the Laws of Malta, since the works did not cause any change in the destination of the cause or rather the premises de quo as established by law.

In this context, it is pointed out that if the applicants in their capacity as co-owners made use of common property within the limits of the law,than the Honourable First Court was legally mistaken when it concluded that there was a violation of Article 493 of Cap. 16 of the Laws of Malta (which mentions the consent of the co-owners of the premises).

That it is also pointed out that the Honourable First Court put aside the application of Article 492 of Cap. 16 of the Laws of Malta which states that each one of the co-owners can oblige the others to pay their share for the expense required so that the property held in common be held in good condition. Even on this point it results that the applicant Paul Chetcuti proceeded according to law.

...........omissis...........

Thusinthe light of all that exposed, it results most amply that the Honourable First Court was legally wrong when it reached the conclusion that the applicants did not have any right to carry out the works in question,and consequently there is room that the judgement appealed be cancelled, revoked and annulled.

Thus, the appellants whilst referring to all the proof produced, and reserving the right to bring all the proof admissible at law, at this stage pray with respect that this Honourable Court revoke, cancel and annul the decision of the First Hall Civil Court, dated 25th March, 2014, in the names Chetcuti Anthony (ID 271260M) and Louis Chetcuti (ID 141763M) vs Cortis Mary (ID 181136M) and Paul Chetcuti (ID 218870M), as requested in this application.

Notify: Anthony and Louis Chetcuti, Belair House, C. De Brockdorff Street, Imsida.

Adv. Frank PoRtelli, LLD

For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree given on the 12th November, 2014, by the Civil Court (Family Section), in the records of the Sworn Application, in the names Pelham Keith vs Pelham Josephine, application number 182/14 AL, 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 Sworn Application filed in the Civil Court (Family Section), in the names, Pelham Keith (ID 172968M) vs Pelham Josephine (ID 55062M), on the 13th August, 2014, the applicant Keith Pelham asked the defendant to state why this Honourable Court should not:

Declare the defendant solely responsible for the breakdown of the present marriage for those reasons indicated in the application, pronouce the personal separation between the parties for the reasons indicated in the application and uphold the other demands in the application, amongst which that the eventual judgement of this Honourable Court be registered in the Public Registry.

With costs against the defendant summoned so that a reference to her evidence be made.

Respondent: Josephine Pelham, 42, Triq Spinola, San Ġiljan.

The Sworn Application in the names Pelham Keith vs Pelham Josephine, application number 182/14 AL, has been deferred for hearing to the 6th May, 2015, at 9.15 a.m.

Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD

For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals

By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal, of the 12th February, 2015, 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).

Vodafone Malta Limited(C 10865), of Skyparks Business Centre, Malta International Airport, Ħal Luqa LQA 4000, filed a Claim, on the 12th January, 2015, whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Klinsmann Grech (ID 208991M), ofFlat 6, Blokka 17, Bieb A, Triq l-Iskola, San Ġwann, to pay the plaintiff company the sum of €1,354.67 which amount is due to the plaintiff company.

With costs and legal interests.

The case (Claim Number 24/15DMA) is deferred for the 12th March, 2015 at 12.05 p.m.

Alexandra Debattista

For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of an application filed in the Civil Court of Voluntary Jurisdiction Section, on the 18th September, 2014, Application number 844/2014 by Simon Joseph, Lewis Joseph sive Lewis sive Louis, Margaret Rose Gauci, Antoinette Marie Curmi and Paul, all brothers and sisters Torpiano, whereby they prayed that it be declared open in their favour in equal shares between them, the Succession oftheir mother, Matilde Torpiano, widow of Joseph Torpiano, daughter of the late Simeone Sammut and Paola née Vella, born and resided in Valletta, and died in Tal-Pietà, on the 29th August, 2003, aged 94, holding identity card number 554608(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

By means of a decree given by the First Hall Civil Court, on the 11th February, 2015, in the records of the Sworn Application, in the names Saydon Advocate Henry vs Dov Riger, application number 32/15 LM, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the defendant in terms of Article 187 (3) et. seq. of Cap. 12.

By means of a Sworn Application filed in the First Hall Civil Court, in the names Advocate Dr Henry Saydon (ID 458180M) vs Riger Dov (ID 62452A), on the 14th January, 2015, the applicant asked the defendant to state why this Honourable Court should not:

Decide according to the demand without proceeding to a hearing of the cause in terms of Articles 167 et. seq. of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta, condemn the defendant to pay the plaintiffthe sum of eleven thousand, nine hundred fourteen Euro (Euro 11,914), as stated in the application.

With costs and legal interests as demanded against the defendant summoned so that a reference to his evidence be made.

Applicant: 25/9, Vincenti Buildings, Strait Street, Valletta, VLT 1432.

Defendant: Penthouse T1OB, Apartment 58, Tigné Point, Sliema.

The Sworn Application in the names Saydon Avukat Henry vs Dov Riger, application number 32/15 LM, has been deferred for hearing to the 9th March, 2015, at 9.15 a.m.

Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD

For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals

By a decree given by the Civil Court First Hall, on the 24th February, 2015, on the application of Bay Street Holdings Limited(C 12058), Wednesday, 11th March, 2015, at ten in the morning, has been fixed for the Sale by Auction to be held at garage number twelve (12) and garage number thirteen (13), Metropolitan Buildings, Triq Dun Franġisk Camilleri, Ħamrun, of the following items seized from the property of Barcellona Beach Company Limited (C 52674).

Stainless steel display fridge counters, units made of wood, overhead display wood shelf and other various objects.

N.B. The said objects will be sold as described in the acts of file number 8/15.

Marvic Farrugia

For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree given on the 23rd February, 2015, by the First Hall Civil Court, in the records of the Sworn Application, in the names Agius Raymond et vs Juliette Tango Holdings Limited et, application number 25/15 SM, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the defendants in terms of Article 187 (3) et. seq. of Cap. 12.

By means of a Sworn Application filed in the First Hall Civil Court, in the names Raymond Agius (ID 116054M) and Daphne Agius (ID 420186M) vs Juliette Tango Holdings Limited (C 49642) and Alpha Investments Limited (C 44302), on the 13th January, 2015, the applicants Raymond and Daphne Agius asked this Honourable Court:

To declare and decide that clause number two (2) of the agreement dated 14th January, 2010, as stated in the application is null and not valid, declare also that clause number three (3) of the said agreement in virtue of which the applicants bound themselves for the payment of damages and the payment of the penalty is not valid.

With costs against the respondent summoned so that a reference to his evidence be made and saving any action for damages to the applicants against the respondent.

Applicant: Apartment 7, Southcliff Apartments, Triq is-Swejda, Marsaskala.

Respondents: Juliette Tango Holdings Limited, Elaine Court, Apartment 11, Triq is-Sibbien, Marsaskala.

Alpha Investments Limited, 86, Manwel Dimech Street, Sliema.

The Sworn Application in the names Agius Raymond et vs Juliette Tango Holdings Limited et, application number 25/15 SM, has been deferred for hearing to Wednesday, 18th March, 2015, at 11.30 a.m.

Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD

For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals

By a decree given by the Civil Court First Hall, onthe 25th February, 2015, on the application of Bay Street Holdings Limited (C 12058), Wednesday, 11th March, 2015, at half past nine in the morning, has been fixed for the Sale by Auction to be held at garage number twelve (12) and garage number thirteen (13), Metropolitan Buildings, Triq Dun Franġisk Camilleri, Ħamrun, of the following items seized from the property of Barcellona Beach Company Limited (C 52674) and Ian Chircop Beck (ID 64586M).

Two (2) stainless steel display fridge counters, stainless steel fridge counter, units made of wood, wooden kiosk ice cream, overhead display wood shelf and other various objects.

N.B. The said objects will be sold as described in the acts of file number 7/15.

Marvic Farrugia

For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals

By a decree given on the 16th December, 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 January, 2015, on the application of Gatt Mary Anne et, Thursday, 23rd April, 2015, at noon, has been fixed for the Sale by Auction to be held at the first floor of these Courts of Justice, Republic Street, Valletta, of the following property:

The apartment internally marked number four (4), forming part of a block situated in the second (2nd) floor of an eight apartment block officially numbered one hundred and thirty-one (131), in Triq San Pawl, corner with Triq San Duminku, Valletta, overlying and underlying other third parties apartments in the same block, hall, stairwell with common lift, washroom, roof on the fourth level situated on the corner of the first two rooms in Triq San Duminku, free and unencumbered, valued at one hundred and sixty thousand Euro (€160,000).

The said tenement is the property of Cini Anthony (ID 474750M), Maryanne Gatt (ID 96764M), Paul Schembri (ID 229166M), Mark Schembri (ID 235477M), Grace Schembri (ID 39232M).

N.B. The said tenement will be sold as described in the acts of file number 48/14.

Marvic Farrugia

For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals