Court Notices published in the Government Gazette 20,182 of 3rd May 2019

By means of a decree given by the Court of Appeal (Appeals from the Decision of the Arbitrator for Financial Services) on the 29th October, 2018, in the records of the Application in the names Louis P. Naudi pro et noe vs Global Capital Financial Manegement Ltd, Application Number 82/18, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent Louis P. Naudi pro et noe , in terms of Article 187(3) et sequitur of Cap. 12.

By means of an Application of Appeal, following the decision of the Arbitrator for Financial Services, in the Case Number 448/16, of the 12th June, 2018, in the names Louis P. Naudi (ID 794043), in his own name and in the name of his siblings Stephen Naudi (ID 1021946M) and Angele Naudi (ID 299452M) vs Global Capital Financial Management Ltd (C 30053) on the 2nd July, 2018, the applicant respondent company Global Capital Financial Management Ltd respectfully pleaded:

That this Appeal is being filed in virtue of Article 27(2) (a) of Cap. 555 of the Laws of Malta;

That in brief the respondent complainants asked to be paid by the interpellants the amount of loss and damages suffered and this due to the allegation that the respondent company ‘acted  with lack of skill and profession and carelessness and negligence in the carrying out of its appointment as well as lack of observance of the fiduciary duties and the Guidelines and Regulations relating to Investments of the MFSA as regards the applicants when the sale of the investments above referred to was made’;

That the interpellant in a detailed reply contested the complaint on the merit and by preliminary pleas amongst which that the action is prescribed in terms of Article 2153, 2156(f) and 1222 of Cap. 16 of the Laws of Malta;

That by means of a decision given on the 12th June, 2018, the Arbitrator for Financial Services decided to reject the interpellant’s pleas, uphold the complaint and in terms of Article 26(3) (iv) (c) of Cap. 255 of the Laws of Malta, order the interpellant to pay the respondent complainants the amount of €51,000 as regards their investment in Lifemark S.A. Secure Income Bond Issue 3, EUR - QI and the sum of GBP12,276 in Lifemark S.A. - Secure Income Bond 4 GBP - QI and in order to deduct any income they may have received with legal interest from the date of the decision till the date of effective payment and with costs against the interpellant;

That the interpellant felt aggrieved by the decision of the Arbitrator for Financial Services and is thus filing this humble appeal therefrom;

The facts in brief are the following:

The respondent complainants had inherited and/or there were transferred in their name a number of investments of their parents.

… omissis …

The plaintiffs gave instructions to invest in two investments of Lifemark S.A.  Secure Income Bond Issue 3EUR - QI and Issue 4 GBP - QI on the 9th September, 2008, and on the 23rd July, 2008.

… omissis …

It happened that at the beginning of the year 2010 there were appointed provisional administrators for the fund for the period of six months, which was a clear indication that there were financial problems and this investment stopped paying interests, that the respondent company as intermediary informed all the investors with the bondholder notices by means of a letter of March 2010 and a letter of July 2010 … omissis … That as results from the affidavit of the complainant Louis Naudi (as well as his cross-examination) he confirmed that he received these letters and from his evidence it appears that he understood their contents.

… omissis …

That the grievance is clear and manifest and consists in the following:

… omissis …

The First Grievance: That as regards the first plea of the appellant company, the Arbitrator was mistaken when he retained that the complaint as integral and had rejected the demands of the complainants on the basis that the proceedings are not complete.

1.1. That the Arbitrator decided this plea by stating that the procedures before him are not regulated by the Civil Code or by the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure except where the legislator referred to them specifically in Cap. 555. This position with all respect is mistaken.

1.2 That it is clear that in view of Article 1866 of Cap. 16 of the Laws of Malta, the complainant Louis Naudi as mandatary is to prove according to law that the mandator (namely his siblings Stephen and Angele Naudi) were absent from Malta when he presented the complaint and that they are absent from Malta today, something which he did not do.

… omissis …

The Second Grievance: Wrong application of the law and/or legal principles regarding prescription.

2.1. That the interpellant had raised three pleas that the action brought forward by the complainants is prescribed and this in terms of Articles 2153, 1222(1) and 2156(F) of Cap. 16 of the Laws of Malta - the third, the fourth and fifth pleas.

2.2. That the Arbitrator for Financial Services rejected these pleas. The Arbitrator concluded that Article 1222 was not applicable since not the rescission of the obligations is being demanded. The interpellant with all respect does not agree with this interpretation.

… omissis …

2.3. As for Article 2153, the Arbitrator for Financial Services decided that this also was not applicable since the ‘transactions are of a contractual nature’.

… omissis …

2.4. With all respect to the Arbitrator for Financial Services, the interpellant does not agree at all with his ratio decidendi.

2.5. In the first place the interpellant draws the attention of this Honourable Court that as indicacted in the first demand of the complaint, the complainants asked that there be declared that the respondent company acted with a lack of skill, profession and/or carelessnes and negligence in the carrying out of its appointment and lack of observance of the fiduciary duties and the Guidelines regarding Investments of the MFSA, in regard to the applicants when the sale of the abovementioned investmnents took place which sale was made on the 9th September, 2008, and on the 23rd July, 2008. That thus it follows that in each case the passage of prescription began to run from the date of the meeting between the representatives of the respondent company and the complainant.

… omissis …

That more than this the complainant and his siblings never presented a judicial letter.

2.6. That without prejudice to the premised, the interpellant contends and now more and more once the Arbitrator for Financial Services interpreted the complaint as the sale of investments, it is not suitable for the respondent complainants and in his own words, ‘Thus the third criterion was not satisfied and it was not proved that they had the experience and knowledge’ that they understand the risks combined with this product. This means that the provider violated Regulation 2.16. That effectively the Article applicable should be Article 2153 of Cap. 16 of the Laws of Malta.

… omissis …

2.8 That the argument of the Arbitrator that the prescription was interrupted with payments (that the Arbitrator states the interpellant made) is an illogical argument and without any foundation at law.

2.9 That thus for all these reasons the interpellant respectfully submits that this case should effectively result to be prescribed both in terms of Articles 2153, 2156 (f) and even Article 1222(2) of Cap. 16 of the Laws of Malta.

The Third Grievance: The Arbitrator for Financial Services failed to consider the eight (8) pleas of the interpellants and namely the effect of the world financial crisis which broke out slightly after the investment was acquired this effectively represents the casus;

3.1. That without prejudice to the other grievances from an analysis of the Decision appealed it results that the Arbitrator for Financial Services considered that stated by the MFSA  some years after these products were sold ... omissis ... but it did not effectively consider what happened in the product in question of the SIB and the reasons why this failed, thus it appears that the arbitrator did not make a good evaluation of the facts.

3.2 In the light of the complaint regarding the loss of capital and whether this loss was caused by act or omission or other action attributable to the Arbitrator for Financial Services to make the necessary examination regarding the validity or not of this plea.

… omissis …

3.3. That for all these reasons the interpellant respectfully submits that the Arbitrator for Financial Services failed to examine the allegation brought forward in the eighth (8) plea and see whether it was justified or not.

The Fourth Grievance: Irrespectively from any violation of the regulations which could be noticed the Arbitrator failed to examine what was the cause for the loss complained of by the complainants.

4.1. That without prejudice to the other grievances and since the Arbitrator for Financial Services held that the case de quo relates to violation of the regulations due to ‘bad sales’, … omissis … the interpellant respectfully submits  that dato ma non concesso that there results a violation of the regulations how the sale de quo was made the Arbitrator for Financial Services still failed to evaluate if such violation of the regulations effectively was the proximate cause of the loss complained by the respondent complainants.

… omissis …

4.10. That keeping in view all this it should clearly and amply result that the proximate cause of the bankruptcy was certainly not due to any violation or omission on the part of the interpellant.

… omissis …

The Fifth Grievance: That even if dato mano concesso there results a violation of the regulations the remedy given by the Arbitrator for Financial Services should not have included payment in favour of the respondent complainants consisting in that effectively by them.

… omissis …

The Sixth Grievance: That the Arbitrator for Financial Services was mistaken when he rejected the plea of the legitimate defendant.

6.1. In its seventh and ninth plea the interpellant pleaded that she is not the right defendant and the complainants should address their complaint against the foreign company Lifemark S.A. which issued the products.

… omissis …

6.7. All the interpellant did was to promote the products as advertised in its brochure.

… omissis …

6.9 That thus it should result that the motivation and decision of the Arbitrator for Financial Services were effectively mistaken since it should amply result proved that the interpellant had acted qua intermediary for the purchase and sale of the products and if ever for the purpose of loss, others should answer to the complainants.

The Seventh Grievance: That on the merit the conclusion of the Arbitrator for Fniancial Services is with all respect based on a wrong assessment of the facts and the proof bought before it.

… omissis …

7.8. That as stated in the judgement Roberto Gauci vs Erom Trading Ltd et (PA Ċit  177/15 LM)

‘Unless there is ulterior conviction according to the circumstances our Courts have invariably taken the position that if one has the normal ability and faculties, he is responsible even for his carelessness.’

… omissis …

7.14. Furthermore and as already mentioned in this appeal it results that there is no connection between the involvement of the interpellant and the effective loss of the investment de quo and thus the interpellant should not be considered responsible herself for the loss in the investment and much less pay any compensation  for that which she is not responsible.

Conclusion:

That together with this appeal and in terms of Article 145 of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta the interpellant is presenting a report regarding the products Lifemark S.A. Secure Income Bond (SIB) entitled ‘Product Review by Debbie Harrison Senior Visting Fellow of the Pensions Institute at Cass Business School and contributor to the Financial times’ which is being marked Doc. DH as well as a report the medical expert Dr M. Desmond Fitzgerald  (Doc. MDF). It is underlined that although the latter refers to the product with the name ‘SIB Issue3’ the terms and conditions of this product are identical to those of the product ‘SIB Issues’ as appears from the brochure of the product annexed with the same document for all intents and purposes.

Thus the interpellant whilst referring to all the proof and all the records of this cause and whilst reserving to bring all the proof according to law, prays this Honourable Court to cancel and revoke the decision for Financial Services of the 12th June, 2018, in the names above premised and saving any other order that this Honourable Court deems fit and opportune, reject the demands of the respondent complainants and uphold the pleas of the interpellants with costs of both instances against the respondent complainants.

The Sworn Application Number 82/18, in the names Louis P. Naudi pro et noe vs Global Financial Management Ltd, has been put off for hearing to the 3rd June, 2019, at 9.00 a.m.

Notify: Louis Naudi pro et noe, 40, Flat 3, Triq Nathalie Poutiatin Tabone, Tas-Sliema SLM 1870

ADV. FRANK PORTELLI, LLD

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By decree given by the Civil Court, First Hall on the 29th April, 2019, on the application of Brian Cutajar noe, Wednesday 25th September, 2019, at noon (12.00 p.m.) has been fixed for the sale by auction to be held in room number 78, near the Archives, Level -1, Courts of Justice, Triq ir-Repubblika, Valletta of the following items, as decreed on 23rd October, 2013, seized from the property of Salvatore sive Salvu Cutajar (ID 375142M).

One hundred (100) ordinary shares within the company S.C. & Company Limited (C 6050).

N.B. The said objects will be sold as described in the acts of the judicial sale file number 32/11.

MARVIC FARRUGIA

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

Republic of Malta

To the Marshall of the Court

By means of a decree given by this Court on the 12th April, 2019, following a request by BNF Bank plc previously Banif Bank plc it was ordered that deputy curators be chosen to represent the interest of the debtor in the judicial sale by auction number 1/2019 in the names BNF Bank plc previously Banif Bank plc vs Deputy Curators and in the other relative and subsequent acts.

By means of an application for the issuing of a Warrant of Seizure on immovable property filed on the 7th January, 2019, BNF Bank plc formerly Banif Bank (Malta) plc (C 41030) of 203, Level 2, Rue D’Argens, Gżira vs Eve Farrugia, financial officer, unmarried, daughter of Louis and Josephine née Attard, born in Ħ’Attard on the 18th September, 1975, and residing at 25, Triq Castro, Naxxar (ID 502475M), requests with respect:

That by means of a judgment given on the 5th November, 2018, this Honourable Court in the names abovementioned and with Sworn Application number 601/2017JPG Honourable Jacqueline Padovani Grima (Doc. A) which judgment was final, this same Court decided that:

“It upholds the first request and decides this application without proceeding to trial in terms of Article 167 et sequitur of Cap. 12;

Declares that the respondent is debtor of the applicant bank in the amount of €426,701.10; and 

Consequently condemns the same respondent to pay the sum of €426,701.10, together with legal interests from the 9th June, 2017, till the date of effective payment. With all costs against the respondent.”

The debt of the respondent Eve Farrugia continued to accumulate and the amount due till the 27th December, 2018, was of €501,024.88 with interest and costs including and calculated till the mentioned date. This besides the interest and costs from the 27th December, 2018, till the date of effective payment.

The respondent is in possession of the following immovables:

The house number 25 previously 11, found in Triq Castro, Naxxar. This property was acquired by the respondent by means of a deed in the acts of Notary Dr Mario Bugeja on the 9th February, 2004 (Doc. B). 

And the apartment internally marked number 6 which is found in the third floor (second floor level) on the right when facing the building, overlying and underlying property of the company Prysma Properties Limited (C 48492) or their successors in title, forming part of a block of apartments with the name Prysma Apartments, with the door and the facade overlooking on Triq il-Għabex (originally known as new road without name) in St Paul’s Bay, Malta, subject to the passive servitudes and enjoying active rights resulting from its physical position in the block of apartments otherwise free and unencumbered and consequently free from any ground rent, payments, burden or other burdens, with all its rights appurtenances. Included with this apartment there is the right of perpetual and uninterrupted use of the common parts and services of the block of apartments with the name Prysma Apartments. This said block is bounded on the South West with the mentioned road, East and North East with property of the Bellizzi family and from the Northwest with property of the Testa family. This property was acquired by the respondent by means of a deed in the acts of Notary Dr Robert Micallef dated 13th June, 2013.

On the mentioned properties the following hypothecs and/or priviliges and namely those numbered 4327/2010 and 10680/2013 (Doc. F) were registered.

Thus the applicant company requests with respect the execution of the judgement abovementioned, this Honourable Court orders the issuing of the warrant of seizure on immovable property on the aforementioned property and also give those orders and directions that it deems fit and opportune particularly but not exclusively those mentioned in Article 306 et sequitur of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta, so that the applicant will be paid the debt due to it, as abovementioned.

Applicant: BNF Bank, formerly Banif Bank (Malta) plc 203, Level 2, Rue D’Argens, Gżira

Notification: Eve Farrugia, 25, Triq Castro, Naxxar NXR 2406

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, abovementioned, with the witness of the Hon. Mr Tonio Mallia, LLD, Doctor of Laws.

ALEXANDRA DEBATTISTA

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

It is hereby notified that by an application filed in the Court of Magistrates (Gozo) Voluntary Jurisdiction on the 25th of April, 2019 (Application number 44/2019JVC) Grace Galea et requested the opening of the succession of John Galea, who was a pensioner, son of the late Anthony Galea and Angiolina nee Xerri, born in Rabat, Gozo and who used to reside in Nadur, Gozo, and who died in Rabat, Gozo, on the fourteenth (14th) of September of the year two thousand and eighteen (2018), intestate, and which opening of succession is to be made as to one half (1/2) undivided share in favour of his wife Grace Galea and the remaining one half (1/2) in favour of his two (2) children named Paul Galea and Miriam Theuma Scerri, siblings Galea as to equal shares between them.

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. 

DORIANNE CORDINA

For the Registrar, Gozo Courts and Tribunals

Republic of Malta 

To the Marshall of the Court

By means of a decree given by this Court on the 21st March, 2019, following a request of Adv. Peter Fenech noe it was ordered that deputy curators be chosen to represent the absent consegnetary AL Farouk Commerce International, in the records of the application number 282/2019 MCH, in the names Adv. Peter Fenech noe vs Deputy Curators and in the other relative and subsequent acts.

By means of a Sworn Application, filed in the Civil Court First Hall in the names Adv. Peter Fenech as special mandatary of the foreign company Unilever N.V. (number of the Rotterdam Commercial Registration 24051830) of Weena 455, Rotterdam 3013AL, The Netherlands vs Deputy Curators to represent the absent consegnetary AL Farouk Commerce International of Imm. Pacha Centre 75 Av, Khaeirddine Pacha, Block C, Ieme Etage Apt C6, Mont Plaisir 1073-Tunisie, on the 14th March, 2019, the applicant Advocate Peter Fenech as special mandatary of the foreign company Unilever N.V. asked this Honourable Court:

1. To declare that the objects consisting in a number which has still to be identified of bottles of deodorants as well as thirty-five thousand seven hundred eighty-four bottles (35,784) on which there is the trademark of the European Union of the foreign company Unilever N.V. as registered with the Office of the European Union (EUIPO) namely (a) logo U with registration number 003646916 dated 23rd August, 2005 (Doc. U1 annexed) (b) the word ‘Unilever’ with registration number 008646481 dated 18th June, 2010 (Doc. U2 annexed) and (c) the word ‘Rexona’ with registration number 001408921 dated 6th April, 2001 (Doc. U3 annexed) and (d) the word ‘Veseline’ with registration number 005978713 dated 15th May, 2008 (Doc. U12 annexed) and which are presently under the Authority of the Comptroller of Customs after he suspended the release of the container with number CMAU 5900587 containing the said merchandise are counterfeit and contravene the rights of intellectual property of the applicant company Unilever N.V. and this if necessary by means of the appointment of experts appointed for this purpose;

2. Order the Comptroller of Customs to dispose of the said merchandise outside the channels of commerce, in such a manner as to preclude any damage to the applicant company and the public consumer or order the Comptroller of Customs to destroy the said merchandise in any case without any compensation and at the expense of the respondents;

3. Order that the respondents are to bear all the costs connected with the measures ordered in terms of the second (2) and third (3) demands of the applicant’s demands including those of transport of the said merchandise for storage in Malta, before their eventual destruction, of the storage itself, for tallying and all the expenses due to the Comptroller of Customs from the beginning of the procedures as well as the transport from the place of storage till the eventual destruction including all the costs incurred for the final destruction of the said merchandise.

With costs against the respondents from now summoned so that a reference to their evidence be made

List of witnesses

List of documents

Applicant: 36, Triq l-Arċisqof, Valletta VLT 1447

Deputy Curators: Courts of Justice, Valletta

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, abovementioned, with the witness of the Hon. Mr Justice Anna Felice, Doctor of Laws.

ADV. FRANK PORTELLI, LLD

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

DKR 39/2008 – VARIATION OF A FREEZING ORDER

It is being notified that by a decree dated 10th April, 2019, given by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Inquiry – (Magistrate Dr Neville Camilleri LLD) after an application filed by Nikita Mc Anally on the 4th March, 2019, Compilation Number 174/2008, in the case:

The Police 

(Inspector Keith Arnaud)

Versus

Robert Zahra

And

Nikita Mc Anally, 26 years, daughter of Dennis Mc Anally and the late Theresa Sciberras, born in Tal-Pietà, Malta on the 24th February, 1993, residing at Triton Mans, Block D, Flat 20, Triq it-Tamar, St Paul’s Bay, Malta and holder of Maltese identity card bearing number 103893M.

The Court authorised the accused Nikita Mc Anally to withdraw the amount permitted by law which is thirteen thousand nine hundred and seventy-six euro and twenty-four cents (€13,976.24) for the period from March 2018 till March 2019 as well as the amount of thirteen thousand nine hundred and seventy-six euro and twenty-four cents (€13,976.24) for the period from March 2019 till March 2020.

This variation is being published in terms of Chapter 101 of the Laws of Malta, following another decree given on the 13th September, 2018, from the Criminal Court and published in the Government Gazette of the 13th November, 2018, following another decree given on the 29th March, 2018, by the same Court and published in the Government Gazette, following another two decrees dated 28th February, 2008, and 20th May, 2008, which were published in the Government Gazette of the 23rd May, 2008, and following a freezing order given by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Inquiry on the 28th February, 2008, and published in the Government Gazette of the 7th March, 2008, 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 Robert Zahra and Nikita McAnally.

MARVIC PSAILA

Deputy Registrar, Criminal Courts and Criminal Tribunals

DKR 498/2015 – VARIATION OF A FREEZING ORDER

It is being notified that by a decree dated 8th April, 2019, given by the Criminal Court – (Mr Justice Dr Giovanni M. Grixti LLD) following an application filed by Jonathan Roger Portelli on the 13th February, 2019, Bill of Indictment Number 14/2018, in the case:

The Republic of Malta

Versus

Jonathan Roger Portelli, 37 years, son of Roger and Antoinette nee Debrincat, born in Victoria, Gozo, Malta on the 3rd May, 1982, residing at Ulysses Village, Maisonette 24, Triq il-Kavallieri, Xlendi, Gozo, Malta and holder of identity card number 32782G.

The Court authorised the accused Jonathan Roger Portelli to pay his loan by installments on account number 40021654796 with Bank of Valletta plc and that the same bank is authorised to receive these payments.  

This variation is being published in terms of Article 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Chapter 373 of the Laws of Malta and of Article 23A (2) of the Criminal Code, Chapter 9 of the Laws of Malta following a freezing order which decree was given on the 30th September, 2015, by the Courts of Magistrates (Gozo) as a Court of Criminal Inquiry (Magistrate Dr Joseph Mifsud LLD) 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 Jonathan Roger Portelli.

MARVIC PSAILA 

Deputy Registrar, Criminal Courts and Criminal Tribunals

DKR 22/2018 – CANCELLATION OF A FREEZING ORDER

It is being notified that by judgement dated 25th March, 2019, given by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Judicature – (Magistrate Dr Joseph Mifsud LLD) Valletta District Sitting, in the case in the names:

The Police

(Inspector Jeffrey Scicluna)

(Inspector Priscilla Caruana Lee)

Versus

… omissis …

And

Anthony Galea, 56 years, son of Carmel and Josephine nee Grixti, born in Żurrieq, Malta on the 9th November, 1962, residing at Sueno, Santa Marija, Iż-Żurrieq, Malta and holder of Maltese identity card bearing number 736062M.

The Court ordered the cancellation of the freezing order of all the assets of the said Anthony Galea which order was given by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Judicature – (Mag. Dr Joseph Mifsud LLD) by a decree dated 18th January, 2018.  

This order is being published according to section 5(6) of Chapter 373 of the Laws of Malta.

MARVIC PSAILA

Deputy Registrar, Criminal Courts and Criminal Tribunals

By means of a decree given on the 30th April, 2019, by the Civil Court (Voluntary Jurisdiction Section) on an application number 687/2019 filed by Notary Dr Adriana Vella noe, wherein it has been ordered the opening and publication of the secret will of Clive Bernard Wheeler (KI 0036653A), married, son of the late Howard Harry Wheeler and Annie nee Redington, born at Essex, England, and died in Tas-Sliema, Malta, on the 16th January, 2019, at the age of 85years.

The opening and publication are going to be held on Friday, the 14th of June, 2019, at eleven o’clock in the morning at the Annexe of the Law Courts at 34, Triq id-Dejqa, Valletta under the ministry of Notary Dr Adriana Vella.

CARMEN SCICLUNA

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals