Court Notices published in the Govt. Gazette no 20,340 of 31st January 2020

ARB/C001/2020 – NEW FREEZING ORDER 

IT IS BEING NOTIFIED that by a decree dated 27th January, 2020, given by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Inquiry – (Magistrate Dr Doreen Clarke LLD). Compilation Number 35/2020 in the case:

The Police 

(Inspector Mark Anthony Mercieca) 

Versus

XAFIEIRO GIOVANNI THOMAS LANTVELD, unemployed, 23 years, son of Patrick and Wendy née Lemrueld, born in Paramaribo on the 15th November, 1996, without a fixed address in Malta and holder of Dutch passport bearing number NU4KCK5J3.    

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 XAFIEIRO GIOVANNI THOMAS LANTVELD 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 authorised by law 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 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 means of a decree given by the Court of Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction) on the 15th January, 2020, in the records of the Application in the names Farrugia Maria Rosaria vs Formosa Martin noe et noe et, Application Number 117/2015/1 LM, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent plaintiff Maria Rosaria Farrugia, in terms of Article 187(3) et sequitur of Cap. 12.

By means of an Application presented in the Court of Appeal, Application Number 117/2015 FDP, Maria Rosaria Farrugia (ID 1446M) vs Martin Formosa, in his capacity of President, Anthony Zammit in his capacity as Secretary and Feliċ Zerafa in his capacity of Treasurer of the Band Santa Maria, Qrendi, in the  name and in representation of the same and Thomas Smith Insurance Agency Limited, on the 9th May, 2018, the applicant Thomas Smith Insurance Agency Limited (C 5637) respectfully pleaded:

That with the application presented by it before the Courts of Magistrates (Malta) the plaintiff asked the Court to condemn the respondents:

To pay her the sum of €6,350 besides legal interest from the judicial letter of the 14th October, 2014,representing damages suffered by it which consist as for €4700 value of the car Mercedes A Class with reġgstration number ROS 068, €450 representing value of various objects which were found in the car amongst which GPS, and €1200 representing expenses incurred by the interpellant for the hiring of another car and this following the incident which occurred on the 15th August, 2014, where due to carelessness, negligence and lack of observance of the fireworks regulations the car A Class property of Maria Rosaria Farugia was completely burnt after it was hit by a petard which was let off by the respondent band during the Feast of Santa Marija of Qrendi of the year 2014;

That the respondent Thomas Insurance Agency Limited is the insuring company of the respondent Band;

That despite various callings, the respondents remained in default and this despite that the respondent insuring company has admitted the blame;

… omissis …

That by means of its judgement of the 23rd April, 2018, that Honourable Court decided the cause in the sense:

1. That it rejected all the pleas of the respondents Martin Formosa, Anthony Zammit and Feliċ Zerafa, as well as those of the company Thomas Smith Insurance Agency Limited.

2. Declared the respondentrs Martin Formosa, Anthony Zammit and Feliċ Zerafa, as President, Secretary and Treasurer respectively of the Band Santa Marija, as responsible for the burning of the vehicle Mercedes A Class with number ROS 068, which occurred in Lourdes Farmhouse, Qrendi, after a  fireworks petard had fallen on the same vehicle on the 15th August, 2014.

3. Liquidated the damages suffered as a result of the said incident in the sum of €4,700.

4. Condemned the respondents Martin Formosa, Anthony Zammit, Feliċ Zerafa and Thomas Smith Insurance Agency Limited in solidum between them to pay the applicant the sum of €4,700.

5. All costs of the present procedures and legal interest from the 14th October, 2014, till the date of effective payment at the charge of respondents.

That the  interpellant feels very aggrieved by this judgement and from which she is entering this appeal;

That the respondents were covered by an insurance policy issued by the foreign company WR Berkley Insurance (Europe) Limited and this policy was issued throughy the intervention of Thomas Smith Insurance Brokers Limited, a company registered with registration number C 40721;

… omissis …

That this cause is addressed against Thomas Smith Insurance Agency Limited. This is a company registered with the Registrar of Companies as company number C 5637;

… omissis …

That the grievance is clear and manifest and consists in the fact that the Court of First Instance completely misinterpreted the document therein exhibited a fol. 174 and consequently the role which Thomas Smith Insurance Brokers Limited and Thomas Smith Insurance Agency Limited had or did not have; 

In the first place it is to be pointed out that as insurance agent the interpellant does not issue an insurance policy. But in order to say everything, in terms of the provisions of Cap. 487 of the Laws of Malta and Cap. 403 Insurance Business Act, an insurance agent cannot issue insurance policies. He acts in the name of his principal, the actual insurer;

… omissis …

In the present circumstances it is pointed out that there is no insurance company on the local market which is ready to cover fireworks enthusiasts in their fireworks activities … omissis … but certainly the broker cannot be ever considered to be the person who issues the insurance cover or the person responsible for the payment of damages in case of an accident;

… omissis …

In effect the document exhibited a fol. 174 of the process  shows without any controversy that the insurer is the foreign company WR Berkley Insurance (Europe) Limited and that the said policy was issued though the intervention of Thomas Smith Insurance Brokewrs Limited. Unexplainedly and despite the emphasis of the interpellant during the hearing of the cause that Thomas Smith Insurance Ahgency is a company distinct from Thomas Smith Brokers Limited and had no role in the issuing of an insurance policy … omissis …, the Court of First Instance reached the mistaken conclusion that Thomas Smith Insurance Agency limited is to be held responsible in solidum together with the other respondents for the reimbursement of damages suffered by the applicant;

… omissis …

It appears that the Honoiurable Court of First Instance could have been misguided by the simple fact that in his evidence of the 5th February, 2018, Mario Zerafa said that they paid the premium of the insurance policy to Thomas Smith sic et sempliciter;

However from the cross-examination made by the interpellant’s Advocate on the same day, it clearly emerged that the involvement was of the company Thomas Smith Insurance Brokers Limited, that the insurer was WR Berkley Insurance (Europe) Limited and that Thomas Smith Insurance Agency Limited was and remained completely extraneous to all the operation;

… omissis …

The interpellant expected that faced with such a clear attitude by the interpellant and her Lawyer, and insistence on the fact that there is a big disntinction between Thomas Smith Insurance Brokers Limited and Thomas Smith Insurance Agency Limited, as well as a clear showing that the insurer in  this case was WR Berkley Insurance (Europe) Limited and no one else, the Court of First Instance carries out an exercise to establish the facts which emerge ictu oculi from Document MZA a. fol.174 of the proceedings;

It is respectfully submitted that this examination would have left the Court of First Instance no alternative but to conclude that the interpellant was completely extraneous to the insurance policy and thus arrive to uphold the plea raised by the interpellant.

… omissis …

Thus whilst referring to all the proof brought before the Honourable First Court and reserving to bring further proof according to law for the reasons premised in the application and all the other reasons that shall result during the pleading of the cause, the interpellant respectfully prays that this Honourable Court vary the judgement appealed given by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) by cancelling it in so far as it rejected the interpellant’s pleas and in so far as it condemned the interpellant so that in solidum together with the other respondents it pays the amount of €4,700 together with interest calculated from the 14th October, 2014, and the expenses of the procedures to the applicant and instead uphold the pleas raised by the interpellant and free the interpellant from the observance of the judgement.

With costs of both instances against the applicant.

Whereas the written procedures in the cause before the Court of Appeal between Maria Rosaria Farrugia vs Martin Formosa in his capacity as Secretary and Feliċ Zerafa in his capacity as Treasurer of the Band Santa Marija, Qrendi, in the name and in representation of the same and Thomas Smith Insurance Agency Limited, the Court fixed the hearing of the cause on Friday, seventeenth (17) of January, 2020, at 10.45 a.m. and put off to the 7th February, 2020, at 9.00 a.m. before Mr Justice Dr Lawrence Mintoff.

Notify: Maria Rosaria Farrugia, 21, Dawret it-Torri, Santa Luċija

ADV. FRANK PORTELLI, LLD

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By decree given by the Civil Court First Hall on 23rd January, 2020, on the application of Azzopardi Joseph et pro et noe and on the request of Dr Peter Fenech noe, Tuesday, 10th March, 2020, at half past ten in the morning (10.30 a.m.), has been fixed for the sale by auction to be held in room number 78, near the Archieves, Level -1, Courts of Justice, Triq ir-Repubblika, Valletta of the following property.

The tenements numbered 220 and 221 in Triq San Pawl, San Pawl il-Baħar valued together at two hundred thousand euro (€200,000).

The tenement numbered 220 was previously used as a shop today garage with a room and courtyard at the back as extensions of the said garaxx partial underlying of the first floor of tenement numbered 221 original were combined. 

The tenement numbered 221 on two floors with the first floor adjacent the garage numbered 220 and part of the first floor overlying the said garage.

The said tenements are the property of Dr Raymond Zammit et noe.

N.B. The said tenement will be sold as described in the acts of judicial sales number 104/1998.

MARVIC FARRUGIA 

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

It is hereby notified that in virtue of the powers conferred by Section 257 of the Civil Code, the Court of Revision of Notarial Acts, by a decree dated the 23rd January, 2020, and this after a written plea numbered 1154/2019, ordered:

The correction of the Act of Death of Maria Consolata Busuttil, bearing number 2563 of the year 2018, so that in the column with the heading: “Knowledge on the deceased person – whether bachelor/spinster, married, or widower/widow” the word “Spinster” shall be deleted and substituted by the words: “Wife of Joseph Azzopardi from whom she was legally separated”, and since there is no evidence that when she separated she had opted to revert to her maiden surname, it could be required that the surname “Busuttil” in the column with the heading  “Knowledge on the deceased person – name and surname” be changed into the surname of her husband, namely: “Azzopardi”.

Court of Revision of Notarial Acts

MARUSKA BALDACCHINO

Deputy Registrar, Court of Revision of Notarial Acts

By a decree of the 27th January, 2020, given by the First Hall Civil Court, the Court ordered that the extract hereunder mentioned be published for the purpose of service according to Article 338 (1) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Chapter 12).

That by application and schedule of set-off filed contemporaneously by Bank of Valletta plc (C 2833) on the 23rd January, 2020, the approval of the said judicial acts is being demanded for the amount of €150,000 following judicial sale by auction 74/16 in the names Bank of Valletta plc (C 2833) vs John Bugeja (ID 16067M)  held under the Authority of the said Court on the 16th January, 2020.

According to Article 338 (2) of Chapter 12: Any person who may have an interest and the persons so served shall be allowed the time of twenty days to file an answer stating in detail the reasons for their opposition and the amounts in contestation; and where such opposition is based on a claim against the proceeds of sale an alleged cause of preference, they are to state the amount of such claim and the basis for the preference. Such persons shall with the answer file all relevant evidence to substantiate their opposition.

MARVIC FARRUGIA

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By a decree of the 28th January, 2020, given by the First Hall Civil Court, the Court ordered that the extract hereunder mentioned be published for the purpose of service according to Article 338 (1) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Chapter 12).

That by application and schedule of set-off filed contemporaneously by Bank of Valletta plc (C 2833) on the 27th January, 2020, the approval of the said judicial acts is being demanded for the amount of €90,000 following judicial sale by auction 13/19 in the names Bank of Valletta plc (C 2833) vs Av. Dr Joseph P. Bonnici et noe et held under the Authority of the said Court on the 21st January, 2020.

According to Article 338 (2) of Chapter 12: Any person who may have an interest and the persons so served shall be allowed the time of twenty days to file an answer stating in detail the reasons for their opposition and the amounts in contestation; and where such opposition is based on a claim against the proceeds of sale an alleged cause of preference, they are to state the amount of such claim and the basis for the preference. Such persons shall with the answer file all relevant evidence to substantiate their opposition.

MARVIC FARRUGIA

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By decree given by the Civil Court, First Hall on the 20th January, 2020, on the application of Av. Dr Christian Farrugia (ID 473663M) et noe, Tuesday, 10th March, 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.

Property named ‘Aurora’, numbered thirty-five (35) street level (elevated ground floor) and an underlaying garage at semi-basement level numbered thirty-seven (37) in Triq il-Fuħħar, Mosta. The property is let for a period of fifteen (15) years commenced from the 1st of December, 2011, for the sum of €350 monthly. The value of the property adjusted according to the effect of the let is valued at three hundred and forty-nine thousand and seven hundred and eighty-one euro (€349,781).

The said tenement is the property of Michael Joseph Zahra (British Income Tax Registration No. 887511630) and Simon Anthony Zahra (British Income Tax Registration No. 887510632) as the heirs of the late Anthony Zahra (Maltese passport No. 326595) and by decree of the 26th June, 2015, Dr Mark A. Mifsud Cutajar and PL Melissa Anastasi had been nominated for the interest of Michael Joseph Zahra and Simon Anthony Zahra.

N.B. The said tenement will be sold as described in the acts of judicial sales file number 4/2018.

MARVIC FARRUGIA

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree given by the Court of Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction) on the 17th January, 2019, in the records of the Application in the names Av. Tony De Gaetano vs The Planning Authority and the person called into the cause Johann Zammit, Application Number 45/2019 MCH, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the person called into the cause Johann Zammit, in terms of Article 187(3) et sequitur of Cap. 12.

By means of an Application of Appeal filed in the Court of Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction) (Appeal 45/2019 MCH) in the names L-Av. Tony De Gaetano vs The Planning Authority and the party called into the cause Johann Zammit, Appeal Number 445/18 RSP, PA 4578/18, on the 17th December, 2019, the applicant Av. Anthony De Gaetano (ID 422256M) on his behalf and that of his family who live in Triq Filippu Castagna, Gudja, numbers 42 and 44 as well as 46 and 48, the applicant respectfully pleaded:

1. That by means of an application PA4578/18 Johann Zammit who is the owner of various gymnasiums in Malta under the name Spotters Fitness Studio, it was requested that at site 33, Triq Filippu Castgna, Gudja, the use be changed from a private garage as it always was to a Fitness Studio (Class 3c) ‘and proposed sign’ with sole access from the said mentioned street.

2. That the present appellant is one of the registered objectors in the application merit of the present dispute.

… omissis …

4. That following the entry of objections to this application, the applicant specified with a note for what he was applying and this in order that a correct assessment be made on it by the Commission.

… omissis …

6. The Commission during the first sitting before it gave no reasons why it was not agreeing with the factual recommendation of the directorate.

7. Thus during the second sitting it ordered the issuing of the permit and a non-executable development permit with a wrong engineer’s report was issued.

… omissis …

8. Thus by a decision of the Planning Commission which was published on the 24th October, 2018, the same Commission rejected the recommendation brought before it by the Planning Directorate itself and the objections of the present appellants and residents of Triq Filippo Castagna and approved the applicant’s application without limitations which the applicant himself wished.

9. The present appellants appealed on the 8th November, 2018, before the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal with various grievances, amongst which as regards the wrong evaluation of the Commission. 

… omissis …

10. The Environment and Planning Review Tribunal held three sittings.

… omissis …

11. That by means of its decision the Tribunal however rejected in whole the the appeal of the interpellant appellant with a decision of the 5th December, 2019.

12. That the appellants felt aggrieved by the decision and the grievances are clear and manifest and consist in the following:

12.1. The first three grievances are that the same Tribunal and Commission before it was extra petita.

Grievance 1: Conditions accepted by the applicant himself and ignored by the Tribunal.

12.1.1. Without prejudice to the other subsequent grievances where it shall be shown that a permit could never be issued as it was on the site de quo and the same permission should be revoked the same Tribunal was ultra vires when it effectively rejected the appeal.

… omissis …

12.1.2. The same Tribunal not only could not give the applicant more than he was asking and in this it was legally ultra vires its powers as shall be every Commission and as effectively the Commission was in this case before the Tribunal or Court to grant more than asked, but in the sphere of planning this is more and more necessary in order to keep the equilibrium between commercial activity and nearby residential activity.

Grievance 2: The wrong engineer’s report was approved

12.1.3. Not only so but the same applicant admitted that the engineer’s report was completely wrong.

Grievance 3: Approving the wrong plan

12.1.4.  Also at all the stages of the application and the appeal nothwithstanding that the applicant corrected the plan of his application from 40A to that of 103A in the application process where he made self-imposed conditions even these in an irregular manner were ignored by the Commission even by the Tribunal.

12.2. The fourth grievance is a substantive dispute which is not simply peripheral but affects the substance of the decison of the Tribunal and the Commission agreed that the parties had not pleaded.

12.2.1. In the judgement hereby asppealed the Tribunal said that it had seen the PA file with number 4578/18. It does not mention that it saw other files. It is true that  it saw all the records of this appeal. But not even once during the appeal there appeared other files. But gret importance was granted by this Tribunal to PAPB file PB1406/80 and it appears that they took cognizance of it only from the site history in the case officer’s report.

… omissis …

12.2.3. But the appellants never thought that the same Tribunal was to arrive with an assertion without verifying from the disposable files at the Planning Authority.

12.3. The fifth grievance is a completely mistaken interpretation of the Tribunal of part of the Legislated Policy SMHO 02 which interpretation violated the right of fair hearing to the appellants.

12.3.1. The Tribunal stated thus in the decision appealed and namely that class 3C - assembly and leisure according to the same policy SMHO 02 can be given in residential zones as long as two conditions are respected. The first condition is that the development is to be ‘of a small scale and does not create adverse impact on the residential amenity of the area’.

… omissis …

12.3.2. And even the Tribunal did so by ignoring completely all the negative proof of the impact that the same gym was creating … omissis …

The Tribunal is thus considering that it is superflous that the first conditioin has 2 requisites and namely the smallness of the establishment and the impact on the residence because every small scale according to the Tribunal amounts to automatic limitation to the distrurbance of the residential area.

12.4. The sixth and last grievance is a completely mistaken  interpretation of part of the legislated policy SMHO 02 with the facts of the case which amounts to a point of law.

12.4.1. The Commission in order to justify a permit of a  small scale gym while it had already approved the use consonant with policy SMHO 02, as stated above asked the applicant to present a block plan of commercial activity in Triq Filippu Castagna.

… omissis …

12.4.2. The Tribunal decided without seeing what there is effectively in order that it may conclude on the second condition that ‘the immediate surroundings of the site are already of a mixed use character’.

… omissis …

12.4.4. These imprecisions can give a completely different picture of how the truth is. In effect the only permission given by the Planning Authority exlusively on Triq Filippu Castagna is this de quo on site 33, which is the only development with mixed use with a facade on Triq Filippu Castagna and shall not generate an adverse use to the tranquility of the residential area in this street.

That in view of the above the appellant whilst referring to the all the proof already brought forward before the Tribunal and reserves to bring forward all the proof that this Honourable Court feels opportune, respectfully prays that this Honourable Court cancel and revoke the decision of the Environment and Planning Revision Tribunal of the 5th December, 2019, in the names Dr Tony De Gaetano versus the Planning Authority and the party called into the cause Johann Zammit number 445/18 RSP and uphold this appeal in such a manner that this Honourable Coiurt either orders the Tribunal to issue the refusal of the application PA 4578/18 or send back the records to the Tribunal in order to decide the appeal filed before it according to law and within the limits of the application as it had been reduced by the applicant himself.

With costs against the respondent.

By means of a Notice of Hearing of a cause issued by the Registry Superior Courts on the 20th December, 2019, and whereas the written procedures in the cause before the Court of Appeal between Av. Tony De Gaetano vs the Planning Authority and the person called into the cause Johnn Zammit, have been closed, the Court fixed the hearing of the cause on Wednesday, fifteenth (15th) of January, 2020, at 9.00 a.m. and put off to the 12th February, 2020, at 9.00 a.m.

Notify: Johann Zammit, 33, Spotters Fitness Studio, Triq Filippu Castagna, Gudja

ADV. FRANK PORTELLI, LLD

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree of the 28th January, 2020, in the records of the judicial letter number 126/19 in the names Xwieki (Works) Limited vs Robert Riolo et, the First Hall of the Civil Court ordered the following publication for the purpose of effecting service on  the respondent Robert Riolo in terms of Article 891 of Chapter 12.

In the First Hall of the Civil Court

To

Robert Riolo (ID 391966M) of 275, Legacy, Triq il-Waqqafa, Mosta and/or Riolo Marine, 77, Triq Ġlormu Cassar, Mosta

Matthew Muscat 

By means of this present Xwieki (Works) Limited (C 15559), Tax-Xwieki, Naxxar whilst it formally holds you responsible for all the losses and damages it is suffering and it may suffer as a result and/or in connection with any act, omission, behaviour and/or your involvement in connection with the accident which occurred on the 1st February, 2018, where a fire had taken place on the land in Tax-Xwieki, Naxxar and as a consequence twenty-one boats were burnt, and whilst it holds you in dolo, mora and culpa for all the effects and purposes of law, you are being solicited to come forward for the liquidation and payment of the same damages. In default, the interpellant company will proceed further against you according to law.

For all intents and purposes, this judicial letter is to serve to interrupt the prescriptive period that applies.

So much for your own guidance.

With costs

ALEXANDRA DEBATTISTA

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals