Court Notices published in Govt. Gazette No. 19,460 of 04 August 2015

By a decree of the 30th July, 2015, 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 Raymond Zammit on the 28th July, 2015, the approval of the said judicial acts is being demanded for the amount of following €67,500.00 judicial Sale by Auction 20/10 in the names Raymond Zammit et vs Rosario Tabone held under the Authority of the said Court on Tuesday, 21st July, 2015.

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

By means of a decree given by the Civil Court (Family Section) on the 30th April 2015, in the records the Sworn Application, in the names Anna Borg vs Raymond Gatt, Application number 21/13 AL, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent Raymond Gatt 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 Anna Borg vs Raymond Gatt, on the 24th September 2014, the applicant Anna Borg respectfully pleaded:

1. That the parties have a minor child omissis who was born on the 25th August 2007 (Doc. C. Birth Certificate annexed with the Sworn Application).

2. That the applicant Anna Borg commenced legal procedures so that the respondent Raymond Gatt be condemned to pay maintenance and other educational and health expenses for the minor omissis.

3. That the respondent never passed maintenance for the child to the applicant.

Thus the applicant prays that this Honourable Court orders that the respondent gives adequate maintenance pendente lite for the minor omissis under all those conditions this Court deems fit.

Civil Court

(Family Section)

Hon. Madam Justice Abigail Lofaro LLD, Dip. Stud. Rel. Mag. Jur. (Eur Law).

Sworn Application 21/13 AL.

Anna Borg vs Raymond Gatt.

The Court

Saw the application of the 24th September 2014.

In the first place provides the following:

1. That she is to confirm under oath whether she works or not.

2. That she is to present a sworn prospectus regarding her income.

Orders that the respondent be notified who is to file a reply within five (5) working days.

Hon. Madam Justice Abigail Lofaro LLD, Dip. Stud. Rel. Mag. Jur. (Eur Law).

Sevice: Marlou, Flat 3, Triq tal-Qroqq, Imsida.

Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD

For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree given on the 15th May 2015, by the Court of Appeal, in the records of the Appeal Application, in the names Joseph Vella et vs Gino Zammit, Application number 458/13, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondents Gino Zammit and Romina Falzon 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 458/13 in the records of the Judicial Sale (Immovables) Number 71/12, Joseph Vella (ID 69960G) son of Joseph and Catherine née Bajada, born in Xagħra, Gozo, and residing at Xagħra, Gozo, Maria Anna Vella (ID 231646M) daughter of Carmel Caruana and Josephine née Cutajar, born in Mellieħa and residing at Xagħra, Gozo, and Maria Sciberras (ID 404267M), daughter of Joseph Vella and Maria Anna née Caruana, born in Pietà and residing at Xagħra, Gozo vs Gino Zammit (ID 164776M) son of Ronald and Josephine née Mizzi, born in Pietà and residing in Msida, on the 23rd January 2015, the applicant Joseph Vella et respectfully pleaded:

That by means of an application filed on the 21st December 2012, the company HSBC Bank Malta plc (C 3177) asked the Honourable First Court to cancel all the records of the present judicial sale and this after it submitted the following:

‘That the above mentioned Warrant of Seizure of Immovable Property of Joseph Vella et vs Gino Zammit (Sub Number 71/12) were made so that the following property be sold and according to the same demand it was declared that these all belong to the respondent Gino Zammit’.

(a) The house with number twenty five (25) described in the contract of Notary Dr Anthony Grech Trapani, of the 29th July 1996, as number five (5) in Block B, letter ‘B’ in the complex mentioned Binja Buqana, in Triq it-Torri tal-Arloġġ, Mtarfa.

(b) Garage with number fifty one in Block ‘B’ Binja Buqana, Mtarfa.

(c) Garage with number twelve (12) Block ‘B’ Binja, Qlejgħ, Mtarfa.

(d) Flat internally marked with number thirty five (35) in Block A, ‘Gransite’ in Triq Massimiliano Kolbe, Qawra, limits of Saint Paul’s Bay and this in order that there be executed a particular credit of Gino Zammit only and not a credit of the community of acquests.

That Gino Zammit is not one of the owners of any one of the above mentioned properties and this for the following reasons:

(a) By means of judicial sale in the names ‘Ivan and Adriana Zahra vs Gino Zammit’ with number 14/2012 which was made under the Authority of this Honourable Court, on Tuesday 30th October 2012, the Flat internally marked with number thirty five (35) Block ‘A’ Grandsite, Triq Masssimiliano Kolbe, Qawra, limits of Saint Paul’s Bay, was adjudged ‘animo compensandi’ in favour of the Bank HSBC Bank Malta plc; and

(b) By means of a judgement of the Civil court (Family Section) by means of Writ of summons number 145/2007 NC, of the 13th November 2007, all the property which is situated in Imtarfa, namely, property (a) (b) and (c) was assigned solely in virtue of this judgement to Romina Zammit wife of Gino Zammit, after the Court declared the personal separation between the spouses Gino and Romina Zammit.

That the credit which the applicants Vella et have is against Gino Zammit personally and results from a contract of the First Hall Civil Court, of the 14th June 2012 ...omissis... that is much after the separation of the spouses Zammit.

That the applicant Bank is a hypothecary creditor of Gino and Romina Zammit and has registered in its favour General Hypothecs, Special Hypothecs and Special Privileges on the above mentioned property certainly rank before those of every hypothecary creditor.

That the procedures of this judicial sale were commenced only against the respondent Gino Zammit when today none of the above properties belong to him.

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

That the Honourable First Court by means of a decision dated 19th January 2015, decided the following:

That in June 2004, Joseph Vella was introduced to Gino Zammit by a certain John Coleiro.

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

That as a fact Gino Zammit had globally received from the appellants the sum of €61,908.

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

That the appellants had made a formal report and complaint in connection with the facts above exposed and in fact criminal procedures had been taken against Gino Zammit.

That the appellants also instituted civil procedures against Gino Zammit by means of a lawsuit in the names Joseph Vella et vs Gino Zammit (Writ of Summons Number 259/2005 AF) which was decided on the 14th June 2012, in the following manner:

‘For these reasons the Court decides by whilst rejecting the pleas of the defendant, it upholds the first demand and declare that Gino Zammit is a debtor of Joseph Vella and Maria Anna Vella in the amount of forty one thousand six hundred and eight Euro and twenty five cents (€41,608.25) ...omissis... with costs and interests as demanded in the writ of summons.

That besides the cause mentioned in the preceding paragraph on the 29th March 2005, the appellants also filed a Warrant of Prohibitory Injunction in the same names and which bears the number 521/05 which was provisionally upheld on the 29th March 2005 and both the Warrant and the Decree were duly notified.

That following the judgement in the names Joseph Vella et vs Gino Zammit (Writ of Summons Number 259/2005 AF) on the 14th June 2012, which became res judicata, the appellants proceeded with the judicial sale of the immovable indicated in the Warrant of Prohibitory Injunction 521/05, which judicial sale bears the number 71/12.

That in the records of this judicial sale the Bank HSBC Malta plc filed an application merit of this appeal which was decided by means of a decision which was appealed on the 19th January 2015.

That the appellants felt aggrieved by the decision of the Honourable First Court, of the 19th January 2015 and are thus humbly filing an appeal.

That the grievances are clearly and manifest and consist in the following:

1. Nullity of the decision appealed.

That with the due respect towards the Honourable First Court it is pointed out that the decision appealed is null and this since that it completely failed to decide as regards the matters raised in their reply.

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

That this grievance is based on Article 789(1) (c) and this since the decision appealed does not conform with the provision of Article 218 of Cap. 12.

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

Even from a superficial reading of the decision appealed it results that the Honourable First Court completely ignored the matter raised by the appellants in their reply and certainly the judgement appealed cannot but be considered unjust and not in conformity with the provision applicable and consequently null in terms of Law.

2. Wrong Application and Interpretation of the Law.

(a) The Warrant of Prohibitory Injunction Number 521/05.

That in the records there was exhibited a legal copy of the Warrant 521/05 in the names Joseph Vella et vs Gino Zammit.

That this Warrant was filed on the 29th March 2005.

That it is evident the Honourable First Court made strong emphasis in the decision appealed and gave considerable weight to the fact that according to the Honourable First Court this warrant was not notified to the Director Public Registry and to the Land Registrar according to Article 874 (3) of Cap. 12.

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

That it appears that the fact that the Prohibitory Injunction number 521/05 was filed on the 29th March 2005, escaped the attention of the Honourable First Court and that there applied the Articles in Cap. 12 which existed at that time and not those as they exist today.

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

(b) The Judicial sale Number 14/2012 in the names Ivan and Adriana Zahra vs Gino Zammit.

The respondent Bank declare that it had acquired ‘animo compensandi’ the property 35, Block A, Flat 5, Grand Site, Triq Massimiliano Kolbe, Qawra, by means of a judicial sale number 14/2012, which was made on the 30th October 2012.

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

That Article 305(2) of Cap. 12 esssentially binds the executing credfitor to carry out searches on the defendant debtor and the property which shall be sold and this since according to the same article the executing creditor should not only describe the property in detail but also the root of title and specify the burdens on the property.

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

That once the executing creditors in the judicial sale number 14/2012 had to carry out the searches it should have resulted to them that:

(i) the debtor Gino Zammit was subject to a Warrant of Prohibitory Injunction Number 521/05 (which was duly notified according to Law to the Director Public Registry).

(ii) the appellants a legal hypothec against Gino Zammit which bears the progressive number 10059/12 which was registered on the 24th July 2012.

(iii)and above all the appellants family Vella were creditors of the same Gino Zammit.

(c) The Judgement of the Civil Court (Family Section) Writ of Summons 145/2007 NC.

That it was submitted by the respondent Bank that by means of a Judgement of the Civil Court (Family Section) which has the Number 145/2007 NC, dated 13th November 2007, the following immovable property were assigned to Romina Zammit.

(a) ......omissis......

(b) ......omissis......

(c) ......omissis......

That thus according to the respondent Bank this property could not be sold by the judicial sale initiated by the appellants because it did not appertain to Gino Zammit.

That when one reads the judgement invoked that is strongly evident that the parties in this cause or at least Gino Zammit deviated this Honourable Court with the purpose of avoiding the effects of the Warrant of Prohibitory Injunction 521/05.

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

That the ultimate purpose of the parties in this cause or at least of Gino Zammit was that they violate the rights of the appellants and this by inducing the Court to deliver judgement so that there take place transfers which otherwise could not take place.

With the due respect the decision of the Honourable First Court should have condemned this behaviour.

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

That the appellants are of the opinion that the last version is the most plausible and consequently such judgement should not be considered as a Court order for the purposes of Article 874(1) with the consequence that the transfers agreed between the parties in this cause are to be considered as having been made in violation of the Warrant of Prohibitory Injunction 521/05 and consequently null and without effect.

(d) The interest of HSBC Bank Malta plc

The respondent Bank HSBC Bank Malta plc brought forward a demand in the original application on the basis of two principal reasons and namely:

(a) By means of a judicial in the names ‘Ivan and Adriana Zahra vs Gino Zammit’ with number 14/2012 which was made under the Authority of this Honourable Court on Tuesday 30th October 2012, the Flat internally marked (35) Block ‘A’ Gransite in Triq Massimiliano Kolbe, Qawra, limits of Saint Paul’s Bay was adjudged ‘animo compensandi’ in favour of the Bank HSBC Bank Malta plc; and

(b) By means of a judgement of the Civil Court (Family Section) Writ of Summons Number 145/2007 NC, on the 13th November 2007, all the property, which is situated in Imtarfa that is property (a), (b) and (c) were assigned solely in virtue of this judgement to Romina Zammit wife of Gino Zammit, after the Court, declared the personal separation between the spouses Gino and Romina Zammit and such transfer was registered in the Public Registry, Note of Enrolment 10271/2008.

That as regards the first reason one understands that the respondent Bank has the interest required by law to bring forward the demand in the original application.

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

But as regards the second reason the respondent Bank could never bring forward the demand to cancel the judicial sale of property which allegedly belongs to Romina Zammit.

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

That by means of the decision of the Honourable First Court one is given to understand that whoever has a hypothec registered on immovable property has the right to demand the judicial sale initiated by third party creditors be cancelled. This certainly is not the case.

Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta in Articles 313 et seq. is providing exactly what should take place in the circumstances but not certainly that there be demanded the cancellation of the judicial sale.

(e) The Articles 1327 and 1329 of Cap. 16.

That the substantial part of the reasonings of the decision appealed consisting in a quotation of these two articles and teachings regarding the same.

That in the present case it is being alleged that the community of acquests was dissolved by means of a judgement of the Civil Court (Family Section) Writ of Summons number 145/12007 NC and dated 13th November 2007.

That the dispute in examination is whether Gino Zammit has any share left of the immovable property or otherwise in view of that exposed. What should be decided and thus every dispute whether the community of acquests should make good for the dent of Gino Zammit is altogether extraneous.

3. Wrong Appreciation of the proof and the facts.

That in this context, the Honourable First Court made various declarations of fact and on which it based its judgement.

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

That from a reading of the records it clearly resulted that the applicants did not bring forward proof till the grade required by Law and on the other part the appellants brought forward the best proof.

4. Conclusion.

That for all the reasons above premised it is the humble submission of the appellants that the decision appealed of the 19th February 2015, merits to be revoked and the appellant’s requests to be denied.

Thus the appellants whilst referring to all the records of this cause and whilst reserving to bring forward that proof and other submissions permitted by law pray with all respect that this Honourable Court upholds this appeal and reforms the judgement as demanded in this Appeal application.

With costs of those procedures and those before the Honourable First Court against the respondents.

Appellants: St Joseph, Triq Dun Ġorġ Preca, Xagħra, Gozo.

Respondents: Romina Zammit, Block B, Binja Buqana, Triq it-Torri tal-Arloġġ, Mtarfa.

Gino Zammit, Matcarm, Flat 4, Triq Oscar Zammit, Msida.

Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD

For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals

Republic of Malta

To The Marshall of the Court

By means of a decree by this Court, on the 27th July 2015, following a request of HSBC Bank Malta plc, it was ordered that Deputy Curators be chosen to represent absent Robert Clark and Lindsay Jane Clark, in the records of the judicial letter number 2638/2015, in the names HSBC Bank Malta plc vs Deputy Curators and in the relative and subsequent acts.

By means of a Judicial Letter in terms of Article 256(2) of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta, intended to render the notarial contract hereunder mentioned executable presented in the First Hall Civil Court, against Deputy Curators to represent the absent Robert Clark (British Passport number 028204961) and Lindsay Jane Clark (British Passport Number 202479505) on the 24th July 2015, the company HSBC Bank Malta plc (C 3177) of 32, Merchants Street, Valletta, refers you to the contract of loan by the interpellants in the records of Notary Paul George Pisani, dated 13th July 2007, and calls upon you so that within seven days from today you pay the sum of one hundred fifty four thousand and seventy two Euro and thirty four cents (€154,072.34) being arrears due in terms of the same.

In default of payment the interpellant Bank warns you that further Court action shall be taken against you in execution of their executive title without any other prior notice.

So much so that you may know how to regulate yourselves.

With costs.

You are therefore ordered to affix an official copy of this bann at the entrance of this Superior Court and to summon whosoever wishes to act as curator to appear before this Registry within six days and by means of a minute to submit a declaration that he wishes so to act.

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 First Hall above mentioned with the witness of the Hon. Mr Justice Giannino Caruana Demajo LLD, Doctor of Laws.

Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD

For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree of the 11th May 2015 of the Civil Court First Hall in the records of judicial letter number 18/15, in the names Commissioner of Revenue vs Chris Drago pro et noe, the following publication for the purpose of service of the respondent pro et noe was ordered in terms of Article 187(3) et seq of Cap. 12.

In the First Hall of the Civil Court

To: Chris Drago (ID 411867M) in his own name and as director for and on behalf of the company EPS Limited (C 14136) of Casa Drago, Triq Dun Mikiel Xerri, Ħ’Attard, and/or 18A, Boyland Flat 18, Triq Għar il-Lembi, Sliema.

By the present the Commissioner of Revenue of Centre Point Building, Ta’ Paris Road, Birkirkara, calls upon you in terms of Article 59 of Act XXIII of 1998 so that within two (2) days from the service of this act, you pay the amount of €987,521.34 representing amount due by you pro et noe as Value Added Tax according to the same Act.

With costs and interest according to Act XXIII of 1998 till the date of effective payment.

This calling is being made for all intents and purposes of law and particularly, but not exclusively, in order to render executable the executive title which the same Commissioner of Revenue has against you by means of a notice sent to you.

In default, the interpellant shall pass to execute the said executive title he has against you pro et noe by means of the opportune warrants.

So much so that you may know how to regulate yourself and to proceed.

Alexandra Debattista

For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree of the 9th April 2015 of the Civil Court First Hall in the records of judicial letter number 1102/13, in the names Commissioner of Value Added Tax vs Joseph Galea, the following publication for the purpose of service of the respondent was ordered in terms of Article 187(3) et seq of Cap. 12.

In the First Hall of the Civil Court

To: Joseph Galea (ID 31182M) of Silvestru Farmhouse, Triq il-Qammieħ, Mellieħa, Malta.

By the present the Commissioner of Value Added Tax of Centre Point Building, Ta’ Paris Road, Birkirkara, calls upon you in terms of Article 59 of Act XXIII of 1998 so that within two (2) days from the service of this act, you pay the amount of €36,740.37 representing amount due by you as Value Added Tax according to the same Act.

With costs and interest according to law from when the amount de quo was due till the date of effective payment.

This calling is being made for all intents and purposes of law and particularly, but not exclusively, in order to render executable the executive title which the same Commissioner of Value Added Tax has against you by means of a notice sent to you and here attached.

In default, the interpellant shall pass to execute the said executive title he has against you by means of the opportune warrants.

So much so that you may know how to regulate yourself and to proceed.

With costs.

Alexandra Debattista

For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree given by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) on the 15th April 2015, in the records of the judicial letter number 78/14 in the names Director General of Value Added Tax vs Giuseppe Tamburello, the following publication for the purpose of service was ordered in terms of Article 187(3) of Cap. 12.

By means of a judicial letter filed in the Courts of Magistrates (Malta) against Giuseppe Tamburello (ID 0020774A) of Vimy, Triq Patrick Brydone, San Ġiljan STJ 05, on the 9th January 2014, the Commissioner for Revenue of Centre Point Building, Ta’ Paris Road, Birkirkara, solicits you in terms of Article 59 of Act XXIII of 1998 so that within two (2) days from the service of this letter you pay the sum of €3,950.15 representing the amount due by you as Value Added Tax according to the same Act.

With costs and interest according to law from when the amount de quo was due till the date of effective payment.

This solicitation is being made for all intents and purposes of law and particularly, but not exclusively, in order to render the executive title that the Director General for Value Added Tax has against you by means of a Notice sent to you – here attached.

In default, the interpellant warns you that he shall pass to execute the said executive title he has against you by means of the opportune warrants without further notice.

So much for your own guidance and to regulate yourself.

With costs.

Alexandra Debattista

For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals

By a decree of the Consumer Claims Tribunal of 24th June 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).

Stephen Tabone of St Mary, Block B2, Flat 1, Stiratur Street, Mosta, filed a Claim on the 7th April 2015 whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Gianluca Ciprini of Emax Centre, Schembri Street, Ħamrun, to pay the plaintiffs the sum of €1,400 which amount is due to the plaintiffs.

The case (CCT Number 110/15) is deferred on the 29th September 2015 at 1.00 p.m.

ALEXANDRA DEBATTISTA

For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree of the 24th September 2013, in the records of the judicial letter number 1808/13, in the names United Acceptances Finance Ltd vs John Camilleri, the Court of Magistrates (Malta) ordered the following publication for the purpose of service of 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 John Camilleri (ID 382254M) of 132 Triq Matty Grima, Bormla,on the 19th June 2013, United Acceptances Finance Ltd (C 360) of Mizzi House, National Road, Blata l-Bajda, refers to seven (7) bills of exchange signed and accepted by you, which bills of exchange lapsed but were not paid for, copies of this bill of exchange are annexed and marked with numbers 54 to 60.

The interpellant calls upon so that within two days you pay the sum of €1,652 value of bills of exchange above mentioned, besides legal interest from the date due till the effective payment.

In default of payment the interpellant company informs you that they shall proceed against you without any other notice according to law.

So much so that you may know how to regulate yourself.

You are warned that you have the right to oppose the execution of these bills of exchange by means of an application that has to be done within twenty days from the service of this judicial act and this in terms of Article 253 Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta.

This judicial act is being made to render executable the bills of exchange in terms of Article 256(2) of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta.

With costs.

ALEXANDRA DEBATTISTA

For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals