Court Notices published in Govt. Gazette No. 20,336 of 24 January 2020

By means of a decree given by the Civil Court (Family Section) on the 11th December, 2019, in the records of the General Application in the names Mifsud Ruth vs Scerri Christopher, Application Number 526/2019 JPG, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the defendant Christopher Scerri, in terms of Article 187(3) et sequitur of Cap. 12.

By means of an Urgent Application filed in the Civil Court (Family Section) in the names Ruth Mifsud (ID 459477M) vs Christopher Scerri (ID 77081M) on the 20th November, 2019, the applicant Ruth Mifsud (ID 459477M) respectfully pleaded:

1. That the interpellant has the care and custody de facto of her son … omissis … who was born on the 31st December, 2004;

2. That the minor’s father, Christopher Scerri, completely abandoned his son as stated in the application;

… omissis …

5. That once the interpellant has the care and custody de facto of her minor son … omissis … for these last fourteen years she requests this Honourable Court to grant her the exclusive care and custody of the same minor.

… omissis …

Thus for the reasons above premised the interpellant humbly prays this Honourable Court:

1. To grant the care and custody of the minor … omissis … exclusively to the mother, the interpellant Ruth Mifsud, and this under those provisions that this Honourable Court deems fit and opportune to fix.

The General Application Number 526/2019 JPG, in the names Mifsud Ruth vs Scerri Christopher, has been put off for hearing to 18th March, 2020, at 11.30 a.m.

Applicant: Ruth Mifsud, 39, Triq Villa Cagliares, Żejtun

Notify respondent: Dar ir-Risq, Blk C, Flt 8, Triq it-Tarzna, Isla

ADV. FRANK PORTELLI, LLD

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By a decree given on the 16th January, 2020, 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 (Chapter 12).

By judgement given by the Civil Court, First Hall on the 16th July, 2019, by the application number 465/2018LSO, in the names of Gifford Judith (ID 789146M) vs Perkins  Michael (ID 526342M), and after a decree dated 14th January, 2020, Tuesday, 18th February, 2020, at eleven in the morning (11.00 a.m.), has been fixed for the sale by auction to be held in room number 78, near the Courts Archives, Level -1, Courts of Justice, Triq ir-Repubblika, Valletta of the following property.

The premises named ‘Villino Verde’ situated in Triq Valletta, Mosta, with its own airspace, overlaying third party property, including garage on the ground floor level as well as a landing leading to the main door of the villa which is situated on the first floor, subject to annual and perpetual ground rent of €40.18, bounded on the North by Triq Valletta, to the East by property of Carmelo Petroni or his successors in title, to the South by property of successors in title of Victor Drago, with all its rights and enjoyments, as per estimation of four hundred thousand euro (€400,000).

The said tenement is the property of Gifford Judith (ID 789146M) and Perkins Michael (ID526342M).

N.B. The said tenement will be sold as described in the acts of judicial sales number 42/2019.

MARVIC FARRUGIA

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal of 8th January, 2020, the publication of the following bann which appears hereunder was ordered for the purpose of service in terms of Article 931(3) of the Code of                                                                                                                  Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12).

Republic of Malta

To the Court Marshall

By a decree given by this Tribunal on an application  of the company Staff Services (Malta) Limited it was ordered that Deputy Curators be chosen to represent the defendant Anthony Grech (ID 522173M) exercising trade as A & R Grech in the Notice Number 327/2019CZ, filed before the Small Claims Tribunal and in all other relative and subsequent acts where it demanded:

That the plaintiff company offers human resources services where its employees, on a request of existing or new clients, are deployed by the applicant company so that they execute works for those clients which would have requested it and this on the basis of a rate payable every hour;

The applicant company deployed two of its employees at the request of the respondent to work with the respondent in Marsaxlokk and Birkirkara;

In view of the services rendered the respondent is in debt towards the applicant company in the amount of €3,599.64 according to the document here attached and marked as Doc. A;

That although the respondent was solicited several times to pay the amount above mentioned, he remained in default;

That subsequently on the 9th August, 2019, the applicant company filed a judicial letter in terms of Article 166A of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta, with reference number 2457/2019, where for the last time it solicited the respondent to pay the amount due (copy of the letter is here attached and marked as Doc. B) but this was not duly notified to the respondent;

So the applicant company had no alternative but to proceed with this case.

Thus, in view of the above, the applicant company humbly requests this Honourable Tribunal:

To decide and declare that the respondent has to pay the applicant company the sum of €3,599.64;

To consequently order and condemn the respondent to pay the full amount due, as previously liquidated and declared.

Saving any other direction that this Honourable Tribunal deems fit and opportune.

With costs, including this judicial letter against the respondent and with legal interest till the date of effective payment against the respondent that is from now summoned so that a reference to his oath be made.

This application (Notice Number 327/19CZ) is postponed to the 12th February, 2020, at 12.15 p.m.

Plaintiff company: Staff Services (Malta) Limited (C 78278), 41, Triq il-Kunċizzjoni, San Ġwann SGN 1420

Notifiction: Anthony Grech (ID 522173M), 4, Triq il-Mitħna l-Qadima, Mellieħa MLH1341; 19, Triq Anton Buttigieg, Ħamrun

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

You are also ordered to inform everyone that if he fails to make this declaration within the stipulated time, this Tribunal will proceed to the selection of curators of office.

After so acting, or if you should encounter any difficulty in the execution of the said bann, you are to inform forthwith this Tribunal.

Given by the aforementioned Tribunal for Small Claims with the witness of Dr Claudio Zammit LLD, Doctor of Laws, Adjudicator of the abovementioned Tribunal.

ALEXANDRA DEBATTISTA

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree given by the First Hall Civil Court on the 17th December, 2019, in the records of the Warrant of Prohibitory Injunction in the names HSBC Bank Malta p.l.c. vs Sammut Jan, Warrant Number 1407/2010/1 MCH, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent Jan Sammut, in terms of Article 187(3) et sequitur of Cap. 12.

By means of an Application filed in the First Hall Civil Court in the  names (Applicant) HSBC Bank Malta p.l.c. (C 3177) against (respondent) Sammut Jan (ID 94872M), born in Tal-Pietà and residing in Swatar, Birkirkara, on the 25th January, 1972, son of the late John and Agnes nee Bugeja, on the 18th October, 2019, the applicant HSBC Bank Malta p.l.c. respectfully pleaded:

That the interpellant, in order to secure the credit hereunder mentioned against the respondent, humbly prays this Honourable Court to order the issuing of a Warrant of Prohibitory Injunction against the respondent so that he be witheld from  selling, alienating, transferring or disposing inter vivos both by onerous and gratuituos title, personal or real or constitute any privilege and/or hypothec and/or carry out anything that can give rise to the constitution of a privilege and/or hyopthec and this as regards the following property:

House with  the name ‘Sycamore’ and the underlying garage in Triq il-Qattus, Birkirkara, corner with Triq il-Qanpiena, Swatar, Birkirkara, with  Lands Department Certificate of Registration (14003001), other connotations and details not known. This property is built on two portions of land (1) a divided portion of land of 306.87sq.m. subject to the annual and perpetual groundrent of €69.88 and (2) a divided portion of land of circa 4.18sq.m. subject to the annual and perpetual groundrent of €0.12.

Thus the interpellant humbly prays this Honourable Court to order the issuing of a Warrant of Prohibitory Injunction for the amount of two hundred seventy-seven thousand euro (€277,000) against the respondent.

Credit: Two hundred seventy-seven thousand euro (€277,000) besides interests and costs.

Title: Amount due consisting in damages suffered by the interpellant Bank as a consequence of the fact that the respondent acted in violation of his contractual obligations as employee of the applicant Bank in the Department of Trusts and/or in violation of his fiduciary obligations as they emnanted from the law. The damages pretended include inter alia salaries and social security contributions (in the global amount of €189,558.45, which the defendant recieved and is still recieving after the warrant of prohibitory injunction stopped the interpellant Bank from carrying out disciplinary procedures and terminate his employment.They also include an amount which exceeds €87,000 in payments made by the defendant unduly or without authorisation in the course of his employment.

Confirmed before me under oath after I read its contents and in the presence  of as witness of identity and presented by PL Catherine Fenech.

Civil Court First Hall

Hon. Mr Justice Mark Chetcuti LLD

In the records of the warrant of Prohibitory Injunction Number 1407/2019 in  the names:

HSBC Bank  Malta p.l.c.

vs

Sammut Jan

The Court,

Having seen the application,

Provisionally  upholds the warrant;

Orders that the interested parties be notified with two days to file a reply;

Appoints it for hearing on the 23rd October, 2019, at 8.30 a.m.

Warrant of Prohibitory Injunction (where the demand exceeds €11,646.00)

Republic of Malta 

To the Court Marshall

Whereas the above application was presented and there recur the elements required by law for the undermentioned orders.

And after doing this or if you encounter any difficulty in the execution of this warrant you are to inform this Court forthwith.

Given by the Civil Court First all with the witness of Hon. Justice Mark Chetcuti, Doctor of Laws.

The Application Warrant of Prohibitory Injuntion in the names HSBC Bank Malta p.l.c. vs Sammut Jan, Warrant Number 1407/2019/1 MCH, has been put off for hearing to the 6th February, 2020, at 8.30am.

Applicant: 116, Triq l-Arċisqof, Valletta

Respondent: Jan Sammut, Sycamore, Triq il-Qattus, Swatar, Birkirkara

Execution: 

The Director Land Registry, Valletta

The Director Public Registry, Valletta

The Director Public Registry, Victoria, Gozo

ADV. FRANK PORTELLI, LLD

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

It is hereby notified that in virtue of a decree given by the Court of Magistrates (Gozo) in its Voluntary Jurisdiction on the 17th of January, 2020 (Decree number 3/2020BS following application number 4/2020BS), Anita Maureen Youd nee Atkinson, widow of Clifford Youd, daughter of the late Arthur Witted Atkinson and Dorothy Elevine nee Wright, born in Hull in the United Kingdom, and residing in Villa San Lawrenz, Triq Ċangura, San Lawrenz, Gozo (Identity Card number 6710A and residence document number MT0534105) has been confirmed interdicted from all acts of civil life.

Doctor Jonathan Mintoff, lawyer, son of Anthony Mintoff and Domenica nee Mifsud, born in Tal-Pietà, Malta and residing in Għasri, Gozo (ID 9495M) has been nominated as her curator, by virtue of the said decree.

DORIANNE CORDINA

For the Registrar, Gozo Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree given by the First Hall Civil Court (JZM) on the 2nd December, 2019, in the records of the Sworn Application in the names HSBC Bank Malta plc vs Sammut Jan, Application Number 901/2019 JZM, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the defendant Jan Sammut, in terms of Article 187(3) et sequitur of Cap. 12.

By means of a Sworn Application filed in the First Hall Civil Court in the names HSBC Bank Malta plc (C 3177) vs Jan Sammut (ID 94872M) on the 18th October, 2019, the applicant HSBC Bank Malta plc asked this Honourable Court:

1. To declare that by his behaviour as stated in the application the defendant acted in violation of his contractual obligations as employee of the plaintiff bank and/or in violation of his fiduciary duties as emanating from the law, declare that such illicit behaviour justifies the termination of the employment of the defendant with the bank and uphold the other demands in the application amongst which the liquidation of damages.

With costs and interest against the defendant summoned so that a reference to his evidence be made.

The Sworn Application in the names HSBC Bank Malta plc vs Sammut Jan, Application Number 991/2019 JZM, has been put off for hearing to Tuesday, 18th February, 2020, at 9.00 a.m.

Applicant: HSBC Bank Malta plc, Legal Office, Triq il-Merkanti, Valletta

Notify defendant: Jan Sammut, Sycamore, Tal-Qattus, Swatar, Birkirkara

ADV. FRANK PORTELLI, LLD

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

Republic of Malta 

To the Executive Officer (Courts of Magistrates) Gozo

It is hereby notified that by a decree dated 24th December, 2019, the Court of Magistrates (Gozo) Superior Jurisdiction, General Section, ordered the publication of the extract reproduced hereunder for the purpose of service in terms of sections 187(3) and 931(3) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure.

Whereas by a decree dated the 24th December, 2019, in the records of the schedule of deposit and redemption of ground rent number 364/2019 by the Court of Magistrates (Gozo), Superior Jurisdiction, General Section upon an application filed by Dr Angele Formosa, lawyer, holder of Maltese Identity Card number 202475M, in representation and on behalf of Frances Zahra, holder of Australian passport number N5928963; Emanuela Xerri holder of Australian Passport Number N5928963; Rosemary Zahra holder of Australian passport number N9368896; Moses Said holder of Australian passport number 6632453, all siblings, children of Saviour known as Samuel Said and the late Jane known as Jean Said nee Bajada, born in Sydney Australia and residing at New South Wales Australia, in representation and on behalf of Connie Micallef holder of Australian driving licence number 2939AZ; Carmen Galea holder of Australian driving licence number 8677UH; Victoria Jane Sultana holder of Maltese passport number 881543; John Michael Lawrence Baiada known as Bajada holder of Australian passport number N995623, Bernardette Anne Baiada known as Bajada holder of Australian passport number 07557563 and Frances Jensen holder of Australian licence number 6294BP all siblings son of the late Eucharist Michael John Bajada and Madalena nee Xiberras all residing at New South Wales Australia, all born in Sydney Australia except Victoria Jane Sultana who was born in Xagħra, Gozo, all residing in New South Wales Australia, versus deputy curator in order to represent unknown persons entitled to receive the ground rent herewith indicated filed on the 19th December, 2019, in the Court of Magistrates (Gozo), Superior Jurisdiction, General Section, as well as the other related and subsequent acts. The applicants respectfully submit:

Whereas the parties are owners of the property number nineteen (19) in Triq Sant’Anton, Xagħra Gozo, having a garden annexed measuring eight kejliet bounded South by an alley in Triq Sant’Anton, West with the property of the heirs of Karmenu Bajada, East with a garden of the successors of Giuseppa and Emanuela Bajada, or other boundaries which are marked with red on the plan and the site plan which are herewith annexed and marked Document A; 

Whereas the property is subject to an annual and perpetual ground rent of five shillings and six pence equivalent to sixty-four cents of a euro (€0.64c) that shall be paid to the unknown individuals;

Whereas the exponent wishes to prevail herself of the faculty given to her by article one thousand five hundred and one (1501) of Chapter sixteen (16) of the Laws of Malta and thus redeem the ground rent;

Whereas the sum of sixty-four cents (0.64c) capitalised at five per cent (5)% amounts to twelve euro and eighty-two cents (€12.82c).

Therefore, the exponent wishes to exonerate from any responsibility and accedes to this Honorable Court and under its authority is depositing the sum of twelve euro and eighty-two cents (€12.82c) in order to redeem the said ground rent, so such amount will be withdrawn by the same respondent upon delivery of receipt. 

Applicant: Lawyer Angele Formosa nominee, 21, Triq Francesco Masini, Victoria, Gozo

Notification: 

Director Public Registry, Off the Bastion Street, Victoria, Gozo

Registrar of Land Registry, Off the Bastion Street, Victoria, Gozo

Notification of Banns: Attorney General, The Palace, Valletta, Malta

You, the executive officer of the Court of Magistrates (Gozo) are therefore ordered to affix an official copy of these banns at the entrance of this Court, and to summon whosoever would like to act as curator to appear in this Registry within six days, and by means of a minute to submit a declaration that they would like to so act. 

You are also ordered to inform each and every one that if they fail to make this declaration within the stipulated time, the Court will proceed with the selection of official curators. And after so doing, or if you should encounter any difficulty in the execution of these banns, you are to forthwith inform this Court.

Issued by the aforementioned Court of Magistrates (Gozo) Superior Jurisdiction, General Section under the signature of Magistrate Dr Simone Grech BA LLD, Mag. Jur. (Eur. Law), a Magistrate of the said Court.

DIANE FARRUGIA

For the Registrar, Gozo Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree given by the Court of Appeal on the 20th November, 2019, in the records of the Application in the names Lucien Stafrace vs The Planning Authority and Rodrick Grech, Appeal Number 96/18 MS, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent Rodrick Grech, in terms of Article 187(3) et sequitur of Cap. 12.

By means of an Appeal Application presented in the Court of Appeal in the names Lucien Stafrace vs The Planning Authority and Rodrick Grech, Appeal Number 96/18 MS, on the 22nd October, 2019, the applicant Lucien Stafrace respectfully pleaded:

That this is an Appeal from a decision of the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal, of the 3rd October, 2019.

The Facts

The decision of the Planning Commission

That the Planning Commission refused the application for the development with number PA 2201/17, as regards the proposal ‘To demolish existing building, retain main facade and construct basement domestic store and overlying five apartments and one penthouse’ in the premises which are situated at Lyric, 62, Triq Santa Monika, Gwardamanġa, Tal-Pietà.

That the reasons for refusal were the following:

… omissis…

The Appeal before the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal

That the applicant Rodrick Grech had filed an appeal whereby his grievances were essentially:

That in the same street there were various ‘commitments’;

That he filed new plans and thus abided himself with the conditions imposed by the Superintendence for Cultural Heritage.

That the Planning Authority replied as follows:

… omissis…

The decision of the Tribunal

That the reason for the resfusal is based on the objection of the Superintendence for Cultural Heritage such that in the case officer report the following was indicated:

‘The Architect was requested to address the issues brought forward as per SCH consultation reply at doc 50A and letter dated 22/05/17 after which he requested for the application to be suspended.’

… omissis…

However the reason for refusal is solely based on the matters listed by the Superintendence for Cultural Heritage and which the authority considered as sufficient reason for refusal.

… omissis…

In the present case there is a more grievous situation than this, as indicated in the case officer report it was not possible to make further consultation after new plans were presented.

Certainly here is a situation were the applicant presented new plans to the Authority which prima facie address matters brought by the Superintendent but the refusal was still based on the plans which wre objectionable to the Superintendent which were not the plans proposed or rather the development proposal as amended  which the Planning Commission finally considered and decided about.

Thus in this regard it is useful that the application be sent back to the Planning Authority to the stage before the case officer report so that the last plans presented before the decision of the Planning Commission be passed to the Superintendent for Cultural Patrimony in order that the necessary consultation  be made and the application be decided anew.

The Grievances

The grievances of the appellant are the following:

1. The first grievance

Violation of the Provisions of Legal Notice 162 of 2016

That the applicant submitted new plans to try and obtain the approval of the Superintendence for Cultural Heritage (which had objected to the demolition and design and the principle of development proposed a Doc 50A).

… omissis…

That the processing and scrutinisation of the application by the Planning Authority and the internal and external consultants had been made and it was nof found satisfactory or conformant with the policies applicable. The applicant could not expect that after all this process scrutiny and compilation of the report has been made, the plans are changed again and the process be started from the beginning or continue to be prolonged.

That in its decision the Tribunal is ordering that the violation of the law and the avoiding of the mandatary terms in Legal Notice 162 of 2016. In this manner the Tribunal had acted ultra vires its powers.

That our Courts have always upheld that the Laws, especially those of a procedural nature, are to be followed literally and not in an approximate manner. That in this case Legal Notice 162 of 2016 stipulated that the necessary procedure and the terms that are to be followed in the processing of applications.

… omissis…

Once it is established that Legal Notice 162 of 2016 is the applicable law, this is to be followed, it is submitted that the Tribunal failed to observe the full  adherence to this Legal Notice by its selective and illegal application of it.

2. The second grievance

The decision of the Tribunal  goes against the Strategic Plan for the Environment and Development (SPED)

That contrary to that stated by the Tribunal, the reasaon for refusal was not solely based on matters listed by the Superintendence for Cultural Patrimony, but was also based on the Thematic Objective 8 of SPED.

In fact the decision of the Commission stated:

‘The proposed development would conflict with Thematic Objective 8 of the Strategic Plan for Environment and Development which aims for the safeguarding and enhancement of cultural heritage.’

… omissis…

That by its decision the Tribunal is effectively giving place to the procedure where the application be considered again in the first instance when the Planning Commission had already made its consideration and pronounced itself on  the case. That furthermore the Tribunal  is sending back the case for reconsideration on the basis of manifestly incorrect, mistaken, irregular and reasons against the law.

3. The third grievance

Lack of motivation and the decision of the Tribunal

The decision of the Tribunal is not motivated and the Tribunal does not mention any correct reason and/or justification to explain why it changed the decision of the Planning Commission, which was based also on the SPED. When the latter had considered and scrutinised the relevant plans, their impact on the appearance of the street and the projected church and when the external consultants like the Superintendence had scrutinised the application, they did not agree with it.

Thus the appellant whilst refering to the proof and all the submissions already produced and made before the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal and whilst reserving the right to bring forward the proof and submissions permitted to it according to law, respectfully prays this Honourable Court to cancel and revoke the decision given by the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal herein referred to and gives all those provisions it deems fit and opportune.

By means of a Notice issued by the Registry of the Superior Courts on the 24th October, 2019, and whereas the procedures in writing in the cause between Lucien Stafrace vs The Planning Authority and Rodrick Grech have been closed,  the Court fixed the hearing of the cause on the twentieth (20th) of November 2019, at 9.00 a.m.  and put off to the 12th February, 2020, at 9.00 a.m.

Appellant: Lucien Stafrace, 64, Triq Santa Monika, Gwardamanġa, Tal-Pietà

Respondent: Rodrick Grech, 62, Lyric, Triq Santa Monika, Gwardamanġa, Tal-Pietà

ADV. FRANK PORTELLI, LLD

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree of the 26th November, 2019, of the Rent Regulation Board, in the records of the Application in the names Paul Attard et vs Josef Grech, Application Number 196/2019JD, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of effecting service on the respondent Josef Grech in terms of Article 187(3) et sequitur of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12).

By means of an application in the names Paul Attard (ID 178544M) and Antonia Attard (ID 121945M) vs Josef Grech (ID 267081M) filed before the Rent Regulation Board on the 10th September, 2019, the applicants Paul and Antonia spouses Attard request with respect, whilst Paul Attard confirmed on oath, that:

1. The applicants together are the owners of the commercial premises numbered 15, Triq il-Mitħna, Ħaż-Żebbuġ, as shown in the contract of sale in the records of Notary Sandro Schembri Adami dated 16th December, 1997, copy attached as Doc. A;

2. By means of an agreement dated 26th January. 2016, a copy of which is attached and marked as Doc. B, the commercial premises in question were rented by the applicants in favour of the respondent Josef Grech;

3. The premises were rented for a period of 5 years di fermo which commenced on 1st January, 2016, at the rent of €700 per month, renewable for another five years period of time di fermo;

4. The lessee started to operate a stationery shop with the name Sierra from these commercial premises rented to him by the applicants;

5. Although the respondent continued and made use of these premises as a shop, that is as a stationery, today he is in default in his rental payments in the amount of €5457.48 representing the arrears of rent due from February 2019 till September 2019 and so he is not abiding by the terms and conditions of the lease agreement;

6. And also, the respondent is not operating and making use of the said commercial premises and this with effect from two months ago, since at the same time, he started operating from another shop in Ħaż-Żebbuġ with the same name, that is Sierra, of the same nature and with the same employees.

7. The respondent is in default of payment of the water and electricity bills in the total amount of €400.14 covering the period from the 29th December, 2018, till the 4th July, 2019, and these had to be paid by the applicants and a copy of the relative bills is being here attached and marked as Documents C till E;

8. By means of a judicial letter dated 3rd April, 2019, a copy of which is being attached and marked as Doc. F, the respondent was solicited to pay the rent arrears and to pay the water and electricity bills due by him, but he remained in default;

9. The applicants are availing themselves of the right given to them according to Article 9 of the lease agreement and thus terminate the lease of the premises leased to the respondent according to their absolute discretion and this with immediate effect.

10. Paul Attard, one of the applicants, is confirming on oath that in his opinion the respondent does not have any defences to make against the request of the applicants.

Thus the applicants request this Honourable Board, subject to any order, to:

1. Uphold the request of the applicants to proceed with hearing these proceedings summarily without proceeding to trial according to article 16A of Cap. 69 of the Laws of Malta;

2. Declare, if it is the case and for all intents and purposes, the termination of the lease of the premises 15, Triq il-Mitħna, Ħaż-Żebbuġ and this with immediate effect;

3. Order the respondent to vacate from the premises numbered 15, Triq il-Mitħna, Ħaż-Żebbuġ and this with effect from the date of judgement or as established by this Honourable Board and this for the reasons above mentioned and consequently orders the respondent to return the keys of the same premises to the applicants within a short and peremptory time, with the imposition of penalties if he fails to abide by the orders and this without prejudice to any procedures for contempt against the same respondent;

4. Order and condemn the respondent to pay the applicants the total amount of €5,857.62 out of which €5,457.48 represent rent arrears of the premises 15, Triq il-Mitħna, Ħaż-Żebbuġ and the sum of €400 represents water and electricity arrears.

With costs, including those of the judicial letter dated 3rd April, 2019, and of the garnishee order filed together with this application and with legal interest at the rate of 8% per year from the date of the filing of this act till the date of effective payment against the respondent who is from now summoned so that a reference to his oath be made.

Applicants: Fiorella, Triq Tumas Dingli, Ħaż-Żebbuġ

Respondent: 42, Triq il-Harriġiet, Mqabba

The application in the names Paul Attard et vs Josef Grech, Application Number 196/2019JD, has been postponed for hearing to the 30th January, 2020, at 10.00 a.m. 

ALEXANDRA DEBATTISTA

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals