Court Notices published in the Government Gazette 20,185 of 10th May 2019

ARB/C029/2019 – NEW FREEZING ORDER 

IT IS BEING NOTIFIED that by a decree dated 4th May, 2019, given by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Inquiry – (Magistrate Dr Charmaine Galea LLD). Compilation Number 270/2019 in the case:

The Police 

(Inspector Jonathan Cassar)

Versus

JEROME AZZOPARDI, self-employed, 21 years, son of Patrick Scicluna and Josephine Azzopardi, born in Tal-Pietà, Malta on the 9th May, 1997, residing at 60, Fuq Verdala, Bormla, and holder of Maltese identity card bearing number 199797M   

ORDERED the attachment in the hands of third parties in general of all moneys and other movable or immovable property due to or pertaining or belonging to JEROME AZZOPARDI and prohibits the said accused from transferring, pledging, hypothecating or otherwise disposing of any movable or immovable property and this according to Section 22A of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Chapter 101 of the Laws of Malta, and Section 23A of the Criminal Code, Chapter 9 of the Laws of Malta.

The Court AUTHORISED the said accused to receive the amount that does not exceed thirteen thousand, nine hundred and seventy-six euro and twenty-four cents (€13,976.24) per year after the accused indicates with a note from where they are perceiving this money.

Any person who acts in contravention of the court order mentioned in Section 22A and Section 23A referred to above shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine (multa) not exceeding eleven thousand and six hundred and forty-six euro and eighty-seven cents (€11,646.87), or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding twelve months, or to both such fine and imprisonment.

Any transfer or other disposal of any immovable property made in contravention of the said Court order shall be null and without effect at law. 

THE DIRECTOR, ASSET RECOVERY BUREAU

On behalf of the Registry of the Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction (Malta)

ARB/C028/2019 – NEW FREEZING ORDER 

IT IS BEING NOTIFIED that by a decree dated 4th May, 2019, given by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Inquiry – (Magistrate Dr Charmaine Galea LLD). Compilation Number 269/2019 in the case:

The Police 

(Inspector Jonathan Cassar)

Versus

JONATHAN CASSAR, labourer, 34 years, son of Lewis and Josephine née Mifsud, born in Tal-Pietà, Malta on the 8th July, 1984, residing at Blk C, 17, Triq Sofija, Bormla, and holder of Maltese identity card bearing number 322684M.   

ORDERED the attachment in the hands of third parties in general of all moneys and other movable or immovable property due to or pertaining or belonging to JONATHAN CASSAR and prohibits the said accused from transferring, pledging, hypothecating or otherwise disposing of any movable or immovable property and this according to Section 22A of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Chapter 101 of the Laws of Malta, and Section 23A of the Criminal Code, Chapter 9 of the Laws of Malta.

The Court AUTHORISED the said accused to receive the amount that does not exceed thirteen thousand, nine hundred and seventy-six euro and twenty-four cents (€13,976.24) per year after the accused indicates with a note from where they are perceiving this money.

Any person who acts in contravention of the court order mentioned in Section 22A and Section 23A referred to above shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine (multa) not exceeding eleven thousand and six hundred and forty-six euro and eighty-seven cents (€11,646.87), or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding twelve months, or to both such fine and imprisonment.

Any transfer or other disposal of any immovable property made in contravention of the said Court order shall be null and without effect at law. 

THE DIRECTOR, ASSET RECOVERY BUREAU

On behalf of the Registry of the Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction (Malta)

By a decree given on 30th April, 2019, by the Civil Court First Hall, the Court ordered that the extract hereunder mentioned be published for the purpose of service according to Article 187(5) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Chapter 12).

By decree given by the Civil Court, First Hall on the 7th  January, 2019, on the application of HSBC Bank Malta plc (C 3177), Thursday, 20th June, 2019, at half past ten in the morning (10.30 a.m.) has been fixed for the sale by auction to be held in Room numbered 78, near the Archives, Level -1, Courts of Justice, Triq ir-Repubblika, Valletta, of the following property.

Flat numbered one (1) on the first floor of a block of two flats and underlaying garages, without number, named Davpol, also with number thirty-six (36), Triq Mensija, San Ġwann, together with the relative share of the common parts in common with the underlaying flat, including the roofs. This flat is subject to annual and perpetual ground rent of forty-six euro and fifty-nine cents (€46.59), payable in advance on the first day of July every year. This block is bounded on the East by the said street, on the North by property of Carmelo Debono and on the South by property of Raymond Baldacchino as described in public contract of Notary Maurice A. Gambin acts, dated 7th November, 1994, and is being valued at one hundred and fifty thousand euro (€150,000).

The said tenement is the property of Michael Balzan Limited (C 15764).

N.B. The said tenement will be sold as described in the acts of judicial sales number 51/2018.

MARVIC FARRUGIA

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree given by the First Hall (Constitutional Jurisdiction) on the 25th April, 2019, in the records of the Application Number 100/16 JZM, in the names Spiteri Grace vs the Attorney General, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the party called into the cause Amabile Grech, in terms of Article 187(3) et sequitur of Cap.12.

By means of an application, filed in the First Hall (Constitutional Jurisdiction) Application Number 100/16 JZM, in the names Grace Spiteri (ID 532555M) vs The Attorney General and by decree of the 10th January, 2019, there were called into the cause Amabile Grech, the Malta Environmental and Planning Authority, General Services Board and Architect Marvin Ellul, on the 22nd November, 2016, the applicant Grace Spiteri (ID 532555M) for the purposes of Article 6 and Article 13 of the European Convention on Human rights, premised the following:

1. That the interpellant applicant is the plaintiff in the procedures before the First Hall Civil Court, in the cause number 100/2015, presided by the Hon. Mr Justice Lawrence Mintoff, in the names Grace Spiteri vs Amabile Grech et which cause relates to a building built on the back side of her residence and of her siblings, which building did not respect the legal distances from her property, so much so that it is suffocating the interpellant and causing damages to her person and her personality.

2. That the interpellant applicant, by means of an application filed on Thursday, 27th October, 2016, in the procedures mentioned asked for the abstention of the Hon. presiding Judge (Doc. GS 1) in the light that she was not at all happy and satisfied with the proceeding of the cause due to the attitude of the same presiding Judge.

That in view of that premised and that premised in the above application, the interpellant humbly prays and for all the reasons that may result in the course of these proceedings as well as saving any necessary and opportune declaration that this Honourable Court may give:

1. Declare that there is or there may be a violation of the fundamental right of fair hearing on the basis of Article 39 of the Constitution of Malta and Article 6 of the Convention on Fudamental Human Rights (regulated also by Cap. 319 of the Laws of Malta) and violation of fundamental rights for an effective remedy on the basis of Article 13 of the Convention regarding fundamental Human Rights (regulated also by Cap. 319 of the Laws of Malta) and this as regards Article 378 of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta and the relative laws as applied in the cause Number 100/2015 presided by the Hon. Mr Justice Lawrence Mintoff, in the names Grace Spiteri et vs Amabile Grech et, order the abstention of the Hon. Mr Justice Lawrence Mintoff, in the cause with number 100/2015, in the names Grace Spiteri vs Amabile Grech et, and uphold the other demands in the application, amongst which the liquidation of damages and payment of the same.

The Application in the names Spiteri Grace vs The Attorney General, Application Number 100/16 JZM, has been deferred to the 23rd May, 2019, at 9.00 a.m.

Applicant: 12, Tulip, Triq Ġużeppina Curmi, Żejtun

Notify Amabile Grech, party called into the cause: 43, Zest, Flat 1, Triq tal-Palazzi, Żejtun

ADV. FRANK PORTELLI, LLD

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree given by the Constitutional Court on the 17th December, 2018, in the records of Application Number 33/07, in the names AIC Joseph Barbara et vs Myriam Vella et, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent Myriam Vella, in terms of Article 187(3) et sequitur of Cap. 12.

By means of an Appeal Reply and Incidental Appeal of Patricia Anastasi (ID 1908063M), filed in the Court abovementioned, in the records of the Application Number 33/07, abovementioned, in the names AIC Joseph Barbara (ID 502713M), Josephine (ID 179376M) wife of Raymond Azzopardi (ID 557656M) proprio as well as mandatary of the absentee Anna Maria wife of Salvatore Saddemi, Patricia (ID 198063M) wife of David Anastasi and Greta (ID 331365M) wife of Anthony Bartolo Parnis and by decree of the 11th October, 2016, the records were transferred exclusively in the name of Patricia Anastasi and by decree of the 18th June, 2015, the Attorney General was called into the cause, on the 26th June, 2018, the interpellant Patricia Anastasi (ID 198063M) humbly pleaded:

That this is a reply of the interpellant to the appeal of the 11th June, 2018, filed by the Attorney General.

Regarding the Nullity of the present Appeal

That in the first place the interpellant wishes to submit that the appeal filed by the Attorney General is null and this because it was filed before the wrong Court and thus incompetent to hear and decide this appeal.

That in this regard and from the strictly legal aspect the interpellant refers to that decided from this Honourable Court in the cause Perit Joseph Barbara et vs Avukat Ġenerali et decided on the 11th July, 2017, … omissis … and in the cause Vincent Arnaud et vs Strickland Limited (decided 30th September, 2016)

… omissis …

That according to the judgement abovementioned, what was decisive as regards competence is not so much the fact that the judgement appealed is given by the Court in its Constitutional Jurisdiction (as happened in the case in examination and the case abovementioned) but that such judgement is given in the context of ordinary civil proceedings instituted by a sworn application. To such procedures there apply compulsorily the principles which specifically regulate appeals made from decisions in ordinary civil procedures (even if the judgement is given by the Hon. Civil Court First Hall Civil Court (Constitutional Jurisdiction) as happened in this case.

… omissis …

That entirely and without prejudice to the above the interpellant shall also address the grievances brought forward by the Attorney General by means of his Appeal Application in the order they were brought forward in the same appeal.

That the first grievance of the Attorney General ‘concerns that part (of the judgement) whereby the Honourable Court found that the violation of the applicant’s rights as sanctioned under Art. 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention’.

That in this regard the interpellants are a bit surprised by the fact that the Attorney General continues to insist to bring forward this grievance when till this day there were decided various judgements all from this Honourable Court which all found a violation of the fundamental rights of the interpellant as an effect of Art. 12A of Cap 158 of the Laws of Malta.

… omissis …

That even as regards the consideration paid according to law even in this case it is not the case that this in any manner is close to the value that one reasonably expects from property of this type in Saint Julian’s.

The second grievance concerns the amount of thirty thousand euro (€30,000) liquidated as compensation (although in parts of the appeal application reference is made to the sum of twenty thousand euro (€20,000)).

That in this regard the interpellant simply refers to its incidental appeal application, where she is also contesting such compensation but for reasons clearly opposed to those of the Attorney General. The interpellant contends, even in view of the necessity that there be given an effective remedy, that the only just position should have been and should be that keeping in view of the fact that the premises is not yet in her possession, there should be liquidated in favour of the interpellant all the damages effectively suffered as a consequence of the coming into force of Art. 12A of Cap. 158 of the Laws of Malta.

The third grievance regards the further compensation given by the Honourable First Court and namely that the Attorney General is to pay the applicant the sum of four hundred euro (€400) monthly to run from the date of this judgement till the date when the respondent Vella returns the apartment with the vacant possession to the applicant.

Incidental Appeal

That the interpellant also felt aggrieved from the decision appealed and this with reference to the heads of the judgement hereunder indicated and is thus filing this incidental appeal from the same heads.

That thus and without any prejudice to her defence, that the present Appeal is null, the interpellant is bringing also this incidental appeal and this so that the appeal be heard and decided in case that this Honourable Court declares that it is the Competent Court in order to hear and decide the present cause.

That by means of the present action the interpellant is praying that this Honourable Court saving all the necessary declarations orders the eviction of the respondent from the premises or rather apartment number 23, in Block C of St Julian’s Court, Triq Alfons Maria Galea, St Julian’s.

That on his part the Attoney General replied by pleading:

1. That in the first place the plaintiffs are to bring proof of their alleged title.

2. That without prejudice to the above and as regards the merit the interpellants point out that according to the proviso of the First Protocol of the Convention, the state has every right to pass all those laws it deems fit to control the use of the property according to the general interest.

… omissis …

That by means of a judgement of the 30th May, 2018, the Honourable First Hall Civil Court (Constitutional Jurisdiction) decided the cause by whilst declaring that the preliminary plea of the Attorney General was overcome and thus abstained from taking further cognizance, rejected the rest of the pleas of the Attorney General and of Myriam Vella and

1. Declared that Article 12A of Cap. 158 of the Laws of Malta is in violation of the applicant’s rights as protected by Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention.

2. Liquidated the compensation due to the applicant by the Attoreney General in the sum of thirty thousand euro (€30,000).

3. Ordered the respondent Myriam Vella to vacate the apartment merit of these procedures.

4. Ordered the Attorney General so that after the respondent Vella vacates the apartment merit of the present case, and for the whole of her life and till she resides in private accomodation he continues to pay Myriam Vella the sum of €400 monthly … omissis … The costs of these procedures including those of Myriam Vella shall be at the charge of the Attorney General.

That the appellants felt aggrieved by the above decision and are filing this humble appeal therefrom and this limitedly from the remedy given by the Honourable First Court, for the violation of their fundamental human rights namely where the Honourable First Court:

1. Liquidated the compensation due to the applicant by the Attorney General in the sum of thirty thousand euro (€30,000).

2. Ordered the respondent Myriam Vella in order to vacate the apartment merit of these procedures and give back the vacant possession of the apartment and order the Attorney General to pay the applicants the sum of €400 monthly to run from the date of this judgement till the date when the respondent Vella returns the apartment with vacant possession to the applicants.

3. Ordered the Attorney General so that after the respondent Vella vacates the apartment merit of the present cause and for the rest of her life and till she resides in private accommodation Myriam Vella is paid the sum of €400 monthly towards the rent for the alternative accommodation she eventually finds. The costs of these procedures including those of Myriam Vella shall be borne by the Attorney General.

The facts of the case can be summed up as follows:

… omissis …

That the grievances of the interpellants are clear and manifest and consist in the following:

1. That the interpellants shall in the first place discuss the constitutional/conventional dispute which arose as stated above precisely in view of the entry in force of Art. 12A of Cap. 158 of the Laws of Malta.

… omissis …

2. That in this regard the interpellant agrees with that decided by the Honourable First Court in the present case chose to provide for the remedy indicated above. In this regard the Honourable First Court had this to say:

‘The Court is thus of the opinion that the suitable remedy which is to be given to the applicants should necessarily include the eviction of the respondent Vella and this so that the applicants can be put back in the enjoyment of the possession of their property.’

… omissis …

4. That with the greatest respect due, such reasoning is far from the probable, from the legally absurd, exactly in view of that provided slightly before by the same Honourable First Court and in the same judgement where it is stated that it is just in line with the law especially Art. 3(2) of the European Convention that a law which is declared in violation of fundamental human rights be rendered without effect between the parties.

… omissis …

5. In the first place it is stated that from nowhere was proof brought as regards the means of the respondent and thus the Honourable First Court could hardly presume that the respondent is a person necessarily without the necessary means of finding alternative accommodation.

6. That as regards the obligation imposed on the Attorney General for the payment of rent it is stated that the position taken by the Honourable First Court is very similar to that taken by the First Hall Civil Court (Constitutional Jurisdiction) as differently presided in the cause in the names Maria Stella sive Estelle Azzopardi Vella vs Henry Azzopardi et (App. 15/2014) decided on the 28th January, 2016.

… omissis …

7. That notwithstanding this it is good to note that the remedy given by the Honourable First Court was subsequently varied by this Honourable Court by means of its judgement dated 30th September, 2016, after the following was considered:

‘Effectively the Attorney General is stating and the plaintiffs are agreeing with him that the Court could not change the legislative criteria for the determination of the suitable rent, by creating others instead of them as this shall be an usurpation of the legislative power.’

8. … omissis …

9. That more than this the interpellants are of the opinion that the remedy for the eviction can also be given in the context of constitutional and/or conventional procedures so much so that there have already been judgements given by Maltese Constitutional Jurisdictions which provided purposely for this remedy.

… omissis …

10. That once the above is determined it is clear that the only opportune remedy, keeping in view also the present case the constitutional/conventional dispute was raised in the context of procedures for eviction before the entry into force of the law, there should exactly be that which is in line with Art. 3(2) of Cap. 319 be declared that Art. 12A is without effect between the parties.

12. … omissis …

14. That as stated besides the above the interpellants also expected from the Maltese State moral damages and ‘just satisfaction’ since the violation of their fundamental human rights and this referebly for the period which runs from the date when the temporary emphyteusis lapsed.

15. That as regards the compensation due entirely and without prejudice to the above it is determined by means of the Rules of Court of the European Court dated 19th September, 2016, that:

10. ‘The principle with regard to pecuniary damage is that the applicant should be placed as far as possible in the position which he or she would have been had the violation not taken place in other words ‘restitutio in integrum’.’

… omissis …

16. That the interpellant is of the humble opinion that this Honourable Court is to confirm the judgement appealed in so far as it found the violation of the fundamental rights of the interpellants and revoked as regards the remedy given.

… omissis …

Thus the interpellants humbly pray that this Honourable Court whilst rejecting the appeal of the Attoney General in so far as it is not compatible with the above, uphold the interpellant’s appeal and confirm the judgement appealed in so far as it found the violation of the interpellant’s fundamental rights and rejected the pleas of the respondents and revoke it as regards the remedy given and thus provide in this respect by whilst declaring that Art. 12A of Cap. 158 should have no effect between the parties and consequently uphold the plaintiff’s demands, order the eviction of the respondent Myriam Vella within a short and peremptory period, besides liquidating that sum it deems fit and opportune keeping in view of the factors above referred too.

Notify: 23, Block C, St Julian’s Court, Triq is-Sur Fons, St Julian’s

ADV. FRANK PORTELLI, LLD

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By a decree of the Courts of Magistrates (Malta), of 21st February, 2019, the publication of the following banns which appear hereunder was ordered for the purpose of service in terms of Article 931(1) et sequitur of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12).

Banns for Curators

Republic of Malta

To the Court Marshall

By a decree given by the Courts of Magistrates (Malta) on an application of Sonia Montebello it was ordered that Deputy Curators be selected to represent the unknown heirs of Hilaire P. Vincenti who died on the 28th January, 2019, in acts of the schedule of deposit number 436/2019 and in other relative and subsequent acts where she requested:

That the applicant rents the premises 10/2, Triq Vilhena, Floriana from Hilaire P. Vincenti of Vincenti Estates at the annual rent of €560 yearly, payable every six months in advance. The next installment due is that of the 1st January, 2019, till the 30th June, 2019;

For several years this rent was paid to Dr Veronica Aquilina who was appointed by the Civil Court (Voluntary Jurisdiction Section) as curator of the said Hilaire P. Vincenti;

Recently Dr Veronica Aquilina renounced to the curatorship of the said Hilaire P. Vincent and instead Dr Phyllis Aquilina was appointed;

But Hilaire P. Vincenti died recently, exactly on the 28th January, 2019, and so Dr Phyllis Aquilina’s engagement was also terminated;

Accordingly, the applicant does not know to whom the rent is due and so she is depositing the rent due under the authority of the Court;

Besides the rent due for the period from the 1st January, 2019, till the 30th June, 2019, she is depositing also the rent for the period from the 30th June, 2018, till the 1st January, 2019, because the relative cheque was not cashed and/or deposited by the curator abovementioned.

And in order to exempt herself of any responsibility, she is requesting this Court and under its authority is depositing the amount of €515.42 which together with €44.58 representing the costs of this application amounts to €560 so that this sum may be freely withdrawn by the those who have a right to it according to Law.

Applicant: Sonia Montebello, 10/2, Triq Vilhena, Floriana

You are therefore ordered to post a copy of these banns in the entrance of the court and call upon whoever 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 everyone that if there is no such 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 banns, you are to inform forthwith this Court.

Given by the aforementioned Courts of Magistrates (Malta) with the witness of Dr Gabriella Vella LLD, Doctor of Laws, Magistrate of the abovementioned Court.

ALEXANDRA DEBATTISTA

For the Registrar, Courts and Tribunals

By a decree of the 29th April, 2019, 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 187(3) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Chapter 12).

That by an application filed by George Spiteri (ID 609855M) on the 8th February, 2019, the said application is asking for the withdrawal of the amount of €45,000 deposited by schedule of deposit 354/2016, filed in the acts of the Garnishee Order number 1662/2015 in the names George Spiteri (ID 609855M) vs Marsaxlokk Football Club and Robert Micallef (ID 137874M). 

The Court ordered the notification of the application to the counterparty with a five (5) working days period for the reply.  

MARVIC FARRUGIA

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

Notice in terms of article 495A of the Civil Code issued by the Court of Magistrates (Gozo) Superior Jurisdiction, General Section.

Application number: 14/2019 

Application in terms of Article 495A of the Civil Code

Mary Ann Bugeja, Rose Saliba in the name and in representation of Mario Avory Grech, and Andrew Meilak in the name and in representation of Saviour sive Sammy John Grech

vs

Dr Joseph Grech who by a decree dated 18th of April, 2019, was nominated as deputy curator in order to represent Joseph Grech

Sworn application of Mary Ann Bugeja et

State with respect and Mary Ann Bugeja confirms under oath and declares that she knows these facts personally: 

1. That this application is about the property that is the house having the official number sixteen (16), in Triq San Ġakbu, Nadur, Gozo, including the garage and garden annexed to the said house with its airspace and subsoil, which property is better shown on the plan and site-plan herewith attached and marked Doc. C; 

2. That this property was originally owned by the parents of the parties and that is Carmel Grech and Maria Assunta nee Gauci in equal shares between them;

3. That the said Carmel Grech, father of the parties, died on the fourteenth (14th) September of the year two thousand and four (2004) and this as shown by the Death Certificate herewith attached and marked as Doc. D;

4. That the said Carmel Grech disposed of his estate and succession by virtue of a will in the acts of Notary Doctor Michael Refalo of the eighth (8th) November of the year one thousand, nine hundred and ninety-five (1995), a copy of which is being herewith attached and marked as Doc. E and by virtue of which, amongst other dispositions, nominated and instituted his four (4) children, that is the parties in these procedures, as his universal heirs in equal shares between them with the right of substitution in favour of their respective children or in default with the right of accretion between them; 

5. That the succession of the said Carmel Grech has been duly declared by virtue of a declaration causa mortis in the acts of Notary Doctor Maria Grima of the twelfth (12th) March, of the year two thousand and five (2005), a copy of which is being herewith attached and marked as Doc. F; 

6. That therefore following the death of the father, Carmel Grech, the property de quo was owned as to one half (1/2) undivided share by the mother of the parties Maria Assunta Grech and as to one eighth (1/8) undivided share to each of the parties that is Mary Ann Bugeja, Mario Avory Grech, Sammy John Grech and Joseph Grech;  

7. That Maria Assunta Grech, wife of the said Carmel Grech and mother of the parties, died on the seventeenth (17th) August of the year two thousand and thirteen (2013), and this as shown on the Death Certificate herewith attached and marked as Doc. G; 

8. That the said Maria Assunta Grech regulated her estate and succession by virtue of the same will unica charta mentioned above that is in the acts of Notary Doctor Michael Refalo of the eighth (8th) November of the year one thousand, nine hundred and ninety-five (1995), and thus by virtue of which, amongst other dispositions, nominated and instituted her four (4) children, that is the parties in these proceedings, as universal heirs in equal shares between them and with the right of substitution in favour of their respective children or in default with the right of accretion between them; 

9. That her declaration causa mortis has been duly published by each and every one of the plaintiffs in a separate manner, that is by the plaintiff Mary Ann Bugeja on the eleventh (11th) February of the year two thousand and fourteen (2014) in the acts of Notary Doctor Anna Maria Mizzi (copy Doc. H); by the plaintiff Mario Avory Grech on the eleventh (11th) February of the year two thousand and fourteen (2014) in the acts of Notary Doctor Josette Spiteri Cauchi (copy Doc. I); and by plaintiff Sammy John Grech on the seventeenth (17th) February, of the year two thousand and fourteen (2014) in acts of Notary Doctor Josette Spiteri Cauchi (copy Doc. J); 

10. That therefore it results that after the death of the mother, the plaintiffs Mary Ann Bugeja, Mario Avory Grech and Sammy John Grech have one fourth (1/4) undivided share each and that is three fourths (3/4) undivided share together of the property which forms the subject of this application, whereas the defendant has one fourth (1/4) undivided share for the property;  

11. That the plaintiffs made various attempts in order that they establish a contact with their other brother, that is the defendant, but without any result given that notwithstanding that the defendant Joseph Grech is abroad in the United States of America, they have no indication of his whereabouts or how they can make contact with him; 

12. That by virtue of a private agreement of the twenty-fourth (24th) January of the year two thousand and nineteen (2019), a copy of which is being herewith attached and marked as Doc. K, the plaintiffs together obliged themselves to sell the property mentioned above; 

13. That this promise of sale has been duly registered with the Commissioner for Inland Revenue bearing number PS201901921, a copy of which is being herewith attached and marked as Doc. L; 

14. That the plaintiffs have also procured an estimate drawn up by Perit Architect and Civil Engineer Perit Cornelia Tabone, who estimated the property de quo for the whole value of the property in the amount of two hundred and thirty-five thousand euro (€235,000), as shown from the estimate which is herewith attached and marked as Doc. M, which estimate have been duly sworn in front of Notary Doctor Alyssa Manuela Cassar;

15. That a list of the relative portion of the property in question is shown in the table herewith attached and marked as Doc. N;  

16. That therefore the defendant is owner in the share of one fourth (1/4) undivided share of the property de quo, whilst the plaintiffs together are owners of the remaining three fourths (3/4) undivided share of the property as explained above.

Therefore, the applicants request with respect that this Honourable Court:

1. Nominates deputy curator/s to represent the absent Joseph Grech, saving the issuing of the relative notices which should be notified according to Law;

2. Orders the publication of this application in the Government Gazette and in another local newspaper in terms of Article 495A of Chap. XVI of the Laws of Malta;

3. Declares that the price and the conditions proposed for the sale of the property described above are just and reasonable and that the same price and conditions should apply for the sale of the remainder one fourth (1/4) undivided share of the said immovable, saving, if necessary, that the property is valued by an architect and civil engineer;

4. Finally, approves the proposed sale and orders the publication of the contract of sale including the share due to the respondent, on a day, time and place which shall be set and nominates Notary Public Doctor Alyssa Manuela Cassar in order to publish the relative contract of sale, with the intervention of deputy curator/s to represent the eventual absentee on that contract. 

With costs against the respondent

The application is appointed for hearing for Thursday, 14th of June, 2019, at 9.30 a.m. 

MAUREEN XUEREB

For the Registrar, Gozo Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree given by the Court of Appeal (Appeals Family Court) on the 14th August, 2018, in the records of the Application in the names Audrey Cassar vs Aaron Schembri, Application Number 112/17 AL, decided on the 23rd May, 2018, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent Aaron Schembri, in terms of Article 187(3) et sequitur of Cap. 12.

By means of an Application, filed in the Court of Appeal in the records of the Application in the names Audrey Cassar vs Aaron Schembri, Application 112/17 AL, on the 6th June, 2018, the applicant Audrey Cassar (ID 455492M) respectfully pleaded:

Judgement

That the Honourable Family Court decided the cause Sworn Application Number 112/17 AL, in the names Audrey Cassar (ID 455492M) vs Aaron Schembri, by means of a judgement on the 23rd May, 2018.

That for the reasons premised in the application, the interpellant presented an application on the 6th June, 2018, whereby whilst making reference to all the proof brought forward and reserves to bring forward all the proof which this Honourable Court shall permit, respectfully asked this Honourable Court to uphold the appeal filed by her and revoke and cancel the judgement of the Honourable First Court given on the 23rd May, 2018, by upholding the applicant’s demands for the reasons mentioned.

With costs of both instances against the respondent

Applicant: 225, Janice, Triq is-Sorijiet tal-Ursolini, Gwardamanġa

Respondent: 102, Triq Santa Marija, Ħal Tarxien

ADV. FRANK PORTELLI, LLD

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals