Court Notices published in Govt. Gazette no 20,345 of 11th February 2020

Republic of Malta    

To the Marshall of the Court

By means of a decree given by this Court on the 27th January, 2020,  following a request of Maleth Aero AOC Limited it was ordered that deputy curators be chosen to represent the respondents Sea Air d.o.o. in the records of the Application 589/2018FDP, in the names Maleth Aero AOC Limited vs The Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals et and deputy curators and in the  other relative and subsequent acts.

By means of an Application, filed in the First Hall Civil Court, in the names Maleth Aero AOC Limited (C 54721) vs The Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals, Sea Air d.o.o. a company registered in the Republic of Croatia with number MBS 030153497 of 67, Vukavorska Street 31207 Klisa/Osijek, Croatia and Advocate Doctor Antoine Cremona (ID 11980G) in his own name and on behalf of the firm Ganado Advocates and PL Madeleine Firman on the 6th June, 2018, the applicant company Maleth Aero AOC Limited (C 54721) in terms of Article 64 of Chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta premised with respect:

That this is an application for the impugnment of assessment of the taxed bill of costs filed in terms of Article 64 of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure and this to impugn the taxed bill of costs issued in the case number 652/16LM (the bill of costs which is beign impugned is being here attached and marked as Doc. MA1);

By means of a sworn application of the 4th August, 2016, Sea Air d.o.o. (from now onwards called Sea Air) foreign company and locally represented by the special mandatory Advocate Doctor Antoine Cremona, filed judicial procedures in the names Sea Air d.o.o. a company registered in the Republic of Croatia with number MBS 030153497 of 67, Vukavorska Street 31207 Klisa/Osijek, Croatia and locally represented by the special mandatory Advocate Doctor Antoine Cremona (ID 11980G) vs Maleth Aero AOC Limited (Sworn Application number 652/16LM). In these procedures Sea Air was assisted by Advocate Cremona and by other lawyers in the same law firm that is Ganado Advocates which firm is for this reason also being cited in these proceedings impugning the taxed bill of costs;

The said case was eventually cancelled by the Court on the 6th March, 2017;

In short, and to give a background of the facts that led to these proceedings, Sea Air was alleging that Maleth Aero AOC Limited (Maleth) as operator of an aircraft of type Boeing 737-300 for which Sea Air was charterer, violated the Aircraft Charter Agreement of the 30th June, 2015. In particular, in its premises Sea Air referred to the episode where, allegedly, it left stranded not less than 1000 passengers in Germany and in Kosovo.

Due to these facts, Sea Air requested this Court:

i. To declare and decide that the respondent company Maleth violated the obligations as contractually agreed between the parties in this case;

ii. To declare that the respondent company Maleth responsabile for the damages caused to the company Sea Air;

iii. Liquidates the damages suffered by the plaintiff Sea Air consisting of real costs and loss of business, by means of the nomination of architects;

iv. Condemns the respondents  to pay the liquidated sum by the applicants together with the interest due according to law till the date of effective payment and with costs against the respondent company Maleth that is from now summoned so that a reference to its oath be made.

On their part Maleth responded to these requests by a number of procedural pleases and on the merits, they also filed a counter-claim where they alleged that Sea Air had breached the contractual obligations it assumed in the Aircraft Charter Agreement above mentioned, and also other ancillary agreements and this caused damages and costs.

Due to this, Maleth requested this Court:

i. To declare and decide that the company Sea Air d.o.o. obliged itself  contractually to utilse the minimum number of block hours that the same Sea Air d.o.o. in term of the Aircraft Charter Agreement and  pay the company Maleth Aero AOC Limited the Base Rental for a  number of hours and at the agreed rate in the same Aircraft Charter Agreement of the 30th June, 2015;

ii. Declare and decide subsequently that the company Sea Air d.o.o. is debtor of the company Maleth Aero AOC Limited;

iii. Liquidate that sum due by the company Sea Air d.o.o. to Maleth Aero Limited and which represents the Base Rental regarding that number of block hours that the company Sea Air d.o.o. failed to utilise in violation of the obligation it assumed and calculated at the agreed rate between the parties;

iv. Condemns the company Sea Air d.o.o. pay the amount representing the Base Rental, as liquidated;

v. Declares and decides that the company Sea Air d.o.o. is debtor of the company Maleth Aero AOC Limited in terms of 1st March, 2016, for that sum representing the operating fee tha the company Sea Air d.o.o. faile to pay the company Maleth Aero AOC limited;

vi. Liquidates that sum representing the Operating Fees due from the company Sea Air d.o.o. to the company Maleth Aero AOC Limited;

vii. Condems the company Sea Air d.o.o. to pay the amount liquidated representing Operating Fees;

viii. Declares and decides that the company Maleth Aero AOC Limited incurred costs and suffered damages as a result of the violation of the contractual obligations agreed between the parties;

ix. Declares that the companies Sea Air d.o.o. is responsible for the incurred costs and caused damages to the company Maleth Aero AOC Limited;

x. Liquidates the costs incurred and the damages suffered by the company Maleth Aero AOC Limited by the nomination of architects;

xi. Condemns the company Sea Air d.o.o. to pay that liquidated amount to the company Maleth Aero AOC Limited.

For all intents and purposes, the applicants are exhibiting a copy of the sworn application of Sea Air et (Doc. MA2) and also of the defences and counter-claim of Maleth  (Doc. MA3) whilst reserving the right to request that the acts of these proceedings are made part of these current proceedings in the future.

As already said, the case mentioned was cancelled on the 6th March, 2017. At that stage the preliminary defences which were purely of a procedural nature (including whether Sea Air had a juridical personality and/or legal standing to proceed) were still being tackled. No evidence, whether documentary or through witnesses, had been filed in relation to the merits of the case. 

It results that on the 22nd February, 2018, the Registrar computed the bill of costs attached as Doc. MA 1.  On the 8th May, 2018, Maleth was notified by a judicial letter to pay the Registrar of Courts the exorbitant sum of €47,163.20 allegedly due as fees to the Registrar in connection with the case. Maleth is thus considering the date of this service as the date from when the period of one month in terms of Article 64 of Chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta, starts to run. 

It is clear that both in the case brought forward by Sea Air and also the counter-claim of Maleth, damages that are still not liquidated were being requested. It does not result, neither to Maleth nor to the lawyers who represent it, that the parties in this case or their lawyers were ever requested to file a joint note by means of which they agree on the value of the respective claims. 

It appears that in fact it was the respondent Registrar, who unilaterally arrived to his conclusions regarding the value of the case. From documents obtained from the court file bearing reference number 652/16 (Doc. MA4), in fact it resulted that the amount that Maleth was requested to pay by the Registrar refers to the counter-claim filed by Maleth, and it appears that it was worked on the value of €5,145,281.89 which the Registrar arrived at on his own initiative. It appears that this value was computed as follows:

- A claim for damages based on default of Sea Air to use the minimum of block hours: the Registrar has reduced the block hours used (130.25) reduced them from the agreed amount of 2,190 block hour mentioned in the counter-claim and multiplied at a rate of USD 3,000 to come to the sum of USD6,179,250;

- Request for payment of operating fees:  the Registrar calculated that the Operating Fees that had to be paid to Maleth were of USD15,000 per month and for twelve months for the sum of USD 180,000.

On the basis of the total value, then, the Registrar continued to add the costs of the case and to this led to the considerable sum which is being claimed.

It is to be said that in terms of Chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta, that is Schedule A, Tariff A:

4(1) When  the  value  of  a  claim  is  uncertain  or indeterminate  and  the  fees  stated  in  paragraph  3 cannot be applied, the value of the claim shall be assessed in accordance with the following rules:

(f) In causes where the claim is for the Court to declare the existence of a right of the claimant against  any  other  person  which  right  may reasonably  be  inferred  to  be  followed  by  a liquidation  of  the  amount  due,  even  if  such liquidation is not requested in the claim, the claimant  shall  be  obliged  together  with  his claim to submit a sworn declaration stating the approximate sum which he believes he could claim if his right is established, and the value to be assessed shall be the value declared by the claimant:

… omissis …

In view of the above, and for the reasons that will be explained in detail hereunder, Maleth contends that taxed bill of costs issued by the Court Registrar was computed and issued incorrectly both since the procedure set out by law and confirmed in the customary practice of the Registrar was not followed, and also because the computation is, in any event, incorrect.

So the applicants wish to impugn this taxed bill of costs as irregular.

That the complaints of Maleth in this procedure impugning the taxed bill of costs are essentially three:

i. In the absence of a court judgement that liquidates the damages or in the absence of a note by means of which Maleth and Sea Air agree on the respective value of the claims, the Registrar should  not have proceeded to calculate the amount of damages which had to be liquidated. This is even more so when the value is not easily ascertainable from the court file; 

ii. That the calculations are in any case are wrong and exaggerated;

iii. And taking into account the fact that the case was cancelled.

… omissis …

Thus in view of the above and for the reasons premised, the applicant Maleth in terms of Article 64 of Chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta requests with respect this Honourable Court such that, subject to any necessary and opportune declaration, it:

ii. Cancels and revokes the taxed bill of costs attached as Doc. MA1 that was computed by the Court Registrar on the 22nd February, 2018;

ii. Orders that the mentioned taxed bill of costs is computed again on the basis of a calculation or a lesser sum as this Court deems fit;

iii. Gives all those orders and directors that it deems fit and opportune in the circumstances.

With costs against the respondents

Applicants: Maleth Aero AOC Limited (C 54721), Area 3, Security Gate 1, Malta International Airport, Ħal Luqa LQA 3290

Notification: Deputy curators 

The application in the names Maleth Aero AOC Limited vs The Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals et noe, Application Number 589/2018FDP, has been postponed for hearing to the 17th March, 2020, at 10.00 a.m.

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

You are also ordered to inform each one that if he fails to make this declaration within the stipulated time, the Court will proceed to the selection of Curators of Office.

And after so acting or if you should encounter any difficulty in the execution of this bann, you are to inform forthwith this Court.

Given by the Civil Court First Hall, abovementioned, with the witness of the Hon. Mr Justice Francesco Depasquale LLM (IMLI) LLD, Doctor of Laws.

ALEXANDRA DEBATTISTA

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree of the 5th December, 2019, of the Rent Regulation Board, in the records of the Application in the names Francis Darmanin et vs Emanuel Mifsud, Application Number 220/2019JD, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of effecting service on the respondent Emanuel Mifsud 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 Francis Darmanin (ID 863649M), Isabelle Darmanin Godano (ID 997150M), Dorothea Daramnin (ID 972048M) and Mary Rose Vella Haber (ID 332152M) vs Emanuel Mifsud (ID 65960M) filed before the Rent Regulation Board on the 9th October, 2019, the applicant Francis Darmanin et request with respect and Francis Darmanin confirmed on oath that:

The applicants are co-owners of the premises Flat 1, St Joseph Flats, Pjazza Medjatriċi, Ħaż-Żabbar;

That these premises have been leased to the respondent for a long time, the next instalment falling due on the 30th October, 2019, and the last paid rent is that of the yearly amount of €388.28 payable in the amount of €97.07 every three months in advance;

By means of a judicial letter filed on the 9th September, 2019 (Doc. A), the lease of the said premises was terminated with immediate effect because of serious circumstances that led to the rescission of the lease agreement and this because the respondent is not occupying the premises as his ordinary residence and is keeping the premises closed with the consequence that damages are caused in the same premises;

That although, by means of the same judicial letter, the applicants solicited the respondent to vacate from the same premises and return the premises vacant to the applicants here the owners of the same premises, the respondent remained in default, and so this case had to be filed;

That the applicants know these facts personally and in their opinion the respondent does not have any defences to bring to these requests, and thus are requesting so that this application will be decided summarily without proceeding to trial according to Article 16A of Chapter 69 of the Laws of Malta.

Thus, for the reasons above mentioned, the applicants request with respect that this Honourable Court, subject to any declaration, orders and/or necessary and opportune provisions:

1. Decides this application requests summarily without proceeding to trial according to article 16A of Chapter 16 of the Laws of Malta;

2. Declares that the respondent is not occupying the premises Flat 1, St Joseph Flats, Pjazza Medjatriċi, Ħaż-Żabbar as his ordinary residence and is keeping the premises closed with the consequence that significant damages are caused in the same premises;

3. Subject to the declaration that the respondent did not abide with the obligation of the lease as stipulated at Law, confirms the termination of the lease and authorises the respondent to resume the vacant possession of the premises Flat 1, St Joseph Flats, Pjazza Medjatriċi, Ħaż-Żabbar and orders the respondent so that within a short and peremptory time fixed by the Honourable Bord vacates from the same premises.

With costs, including those of the judicial letter of the 9th September, 2019, and reserving the right for any further action against the respondent for the illegal occupation and from now he is summoned so that a reference to his oath be made.

Applicants: c/o 23, Triq Ġanni Bonavia, Ħaż-Żabbar

Respondent: Flat 1, St Joseph Flats, Pjazza Medjatriċi, Ħaż-Żabbar

The  application in the names Francis Darmanin et vs Emanuel Mifsud, Application Number 220/2019JD, has been postponed for hearing to the 18th February, 2020, at 9.15 a.m. 

ALEXANDRA DEBATTISTA

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

Republic of Malta    

To the Marshall of the Court

By means of a decree given by this Court on the 30th January, 2020, following a request of Protect Services Limited it was ordered that deputy curators be chosen to represent the interests of the defendant, deceased, Saviour Johnson in the records of the Sworn Application 135/2009TA, in the names Protect Services Limited vs Saviour Johnson et and in the  other relative and subsequent acts.

By means of a Sworn Application filed in the First Hall Civil Court in the names Protect Services Limited (C 29712) vs Saviour Johnson (ID 340257M), Mary Johnson (ID 119058M), Amanda Johnson (ID 390486M), Claire Borg Johnson (ID 123880M) and Gordon Johnson (ID 335883M)  filed on the 13th February, 2009, the applicant company Protect Services Limited (C 29712) submitted and Josette Agius (ID 461467M) on behalf of the applicant company confirms on oath:

That the applicant company is the creditor of the defandants Saviour and Mary spouses Johnson in the amount of €20,713.72 representing the balance from a greater amount as results from a public deed in the records of Notary Doctor Nicholas Vella dated 11th July, 2006 (attached Doc. A) besides the legal interests on the same amount;

That the respondents Saviour and Mary spouses Johnson failed to pay the amount mentioned above although solicited several times even with a judicial letter dated 25th September, 2007, duly notified to them (attached Doc. B);

That the respondents Saviour and Mary spouses Johnson where on the date of the contract owners of several vehicles, but from information provided by the same respondents Saviour and Mary spouses Johnson, subsequently for the publication of the said contract, several vehicles were divided or transferred by them in favour of the other respondents Amanda Johnson, Claire Borg Johnson and Gordon Johnson, that is their children;

The said transfers were fraudulent and damaging to the rights of the applicant company as creditor of the defendants Saviour and Mary spouses Johnson as said;

That consequently the applicant company was entitled to request the annullment and the rescission of the same transfer;

So this case had to be filed.

For the reasons premised, the applicant company requests with respect this Honourable Court so that subject to any necessary and opportune declaration and provisions it:

1. Declares that the transfer of the vehicles that was made by the defendants Saviour and Mary spouses Johnson to the other defendants Amanda Johnson, Claire Borg Johnson and Gordon Johnson or any one of them, after the publication of the said public deed in the records of Notary Dottor Nicholas Vella dated 11th July, 2006, was fraudulent and caused damage to the applicant company as creditor of the defendants Saviour and Mary spouses Johnson;

2. Consequently annuls and rescinds the transfer of the declared vehicles, in terms of the first request, since they were fraudulent and damaging to the rights of the applicant company as creditor of the defendants Saviour and Mary spouses Johnson;

3. Condemns the defendants to execute all the required procedures and formalities such that the rescission and annulment of the said transfers and the consequent reversion of title of these same vehicles in favour of the defendants Saviour and Mary spouses Johnson, is carried out and is registered in terms of Law with the competent authorities and this on the day, time and place that  it deems opportune, and also nominate deputy curatators for the eventual defaulters.

With judicial costs against the defendants who are from now summoned so that a reference to their oath be made.

The  sworn application in the names Protect Services Limited vs Saviour Johnson et, Sworn Application Number 135/2009TA, has been postponed for hearing to the 17th February, 2020, at 10.00 a.m.

Applicant company:  81, Triq Santa Katerina, Ħal Qormi

Notification: Deputy curators 

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

You are also ordered to inform each one that if he fails to make this declaration within the stipulated time, the Court will proceed to the selection of Curators of Office.

And after so acting or if you should encounter any difficulty in the execution of this bann, you are to inform forthwith this Court.

Given by the Civil Court First Hall, above mentioned, with the witness of the Hon. Mr Justice Toni Abela, LLD, Doctor of Laws.

ALEXANDRA DEBATTISTA

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree of the 23rd January, 2020, of the Civil Court First Hall, in the records of judicial letter number 4213/19, in the names Godwin Zarb pro et noe vs Carlo Montebello, the following publication for the purpose of effecting service on the respondent was ordered in terms of Article 187(3) of Chapter 12.

In the First Hall of the Civil Court

To Carlo Montebello  

By the present Godwin Zarb (ID 71363M) in his own capacity and for and on behalf of his minor son … omissis …, Steven Paul Zarb (ID 0447597M) and Kyle Zarb (ID 4111999M) of c/o 11/20, Vincenti Buildings, Triq id-Dejqa, Valletta, whilst making reference to the collision of the 23rd January, 2016, in Triq Sant’Andrija, Swieqi whilst in the same collision Marthese Zarb, wife and mother of the same interpellants, was killed, whilst she was a passanger in the vehicle of the type Mazda with registration number FAF 165 driven by the interpellant Godwin Zarb which collision occurred as a result of your carelessness, lack of skill, negligence and for not observing the traffic regulations on your part whilst you were driving the vehicle Fiat Punto with registration number DBJ-907 and so they solicit you to come forward for the liquidation and payment of damages suffered by them.

In default if you do not abide with this letter within one week they are going to take further procedures against you according to law.

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

With costs

Notification: Carlo Montebello, 52, Ivory Flt 1, Triq Lija, Ħaż-Żabbar

ALEXANDRA DEBATTISTA

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree of the 12th January, 2020, in the records of the judicial letter number 2440/19, in the names J. Zammit Limited vs Salman Afif Ali et, the Courts of Magistrates (Malta) ordered the following publication for the purpose of service of the respondents in terms of Article 187(3) of Chapter 12.

By means of a judicial letter filed in the Courts of Magistrates (Malta) against Salman Afif Ali (ID 22932A) of  Pietà Apt, Block 3, Flat 10, Xatt l-Imsida, Msida and Olla Orajj (ID 127307A) of Pietà Apt, Block 3, Flat 10, Xatt l-Imsida, Msida in solidum between them on the 14th November, 2019, J. Zammit Limited solicits you so that you pay immediately the amount of  €6,423.48 besides the legal interest from the due day of each bill of exchange till the effective payment, representing thirty-six (36) instalments  of value €178.43 each, which bills of exchange expired on the 1st day of each month from December 2016 till October 2019 (copies here attached and marked Doc. A1 – Doc. A36).

This judicial letter is being made in terms of Articles 253(e) and 256(2) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure and thus the interpellant warns you that if within twenty (20) days from the notification of this judicial letter you do not show this Court grave and valid reasons to oppose such execution of these bills of exchange, this credit will be rendered an executive title and executive warrants will be issued against you according to Law.

So much so may know how to proceed and regulate yourself and with costs against you.

This judicial letter is being sent to you in terms of Articles 253(e) and 256(2) of Chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta and to render executable the bills of exchange and in case you do not make an application within twenty (20) days from the notification of this judicial letter in terms of Article 253(e) Chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta to oppose the execution of the same bills of exchange on the basis that the signature on the bills of exchange is not yours or of your mandatory or on the basis of grave and valid reasons to oppose this execution, the bills of exchange in question will be rendered executable.

Interpellant company: J. Zammit Limited, Aries House, Triq l-Imdina, Ħaż-Żebbuġ, Malta

ALEXANDRA DEBATTISTA

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree of the 27th November, 2019, handed down by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) in the records of the judicial letter number 1981/2019 in the names Sebastiano Agliano vs Citadel Insurance plc et, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of effecting service on the respondent Kevin Borg in terms of Article 187(3) et sequitur of Cap. 12.

In the Court of Magistrates (Malta) 

To Citadel Insurance plc 

By the present, Sebastiano Agliano (Italian Identity Card Number AY3699891) of Via Traversa Cozzo Villa n.8, Siracusa (SR) Sicily, informs you for all the effects and purposes of law that the interpellant filed a Statement of Claim with the Malta Arbitration Centre against Kevin Borg (ID 0192679M) since the latter caused damages to the interpellant as a result of a car accident which occurred on the 27th May, 2007, in Triq Mikielanġelo Borg, Siġġiewi, when Kevin Borg collided with the vehicle of the interpellant having registration number FC 832 AB which was parked and the vehicle was destroyed beyond economical repair.

You are being given a formal notice of all this so that for all the effects and purposes of law you make good and be responsible to pay the amount which your insurer might be condemned to pay to the interpellant.

So much so you may know how to regulate yourselves.

This letter is being sent in terms of Article 10 of Chapter 104 of the Laws of Malta.

1. Citadel Insurance plc

Notification: Kevin Borg (ID 0192679M) 49, Lower Deck, Triq in-Nutar Zarb, Ħ’Attard

ALEXANDRA DEBATTISTA

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree given by the Court of Appeal  on the 31st July, 2019, in the records of the Application in the names Lapira Alexie vs Dr Christopher Chircop noe et, Application Number 734/2017, the following publication  was ordered for the purpose of service of the creditors Christian Mifsud and Mirabelle Grech, in terms of Article 187(3) et sequitur of Cap. 12.

By means of an Application presented in the Court of Appeal, Application Number 73/2017 JZM, decided 26/02/2019, in the records of the Application number 73/2017 JZM, of Alexie Lapira wherein there was demanded the dissolution and winding up by the Court of the company Cut Coiffeur Company Limited (C 33501), which company by provision of the First Hall Civil Court of the 27th March, 2018, was declared dissolved and its winding up was ordered and this in the records of the cause in the names:

Alexie Lapira

against

Dr Christopher Chircop and PL Jean Pierre Busuttil, by decree of the Court of the 12th July, 2017, there were nominated deputy curators for the company not represented Cut Coiffeur Company Limited and David Bajada, on the 18th March, 2019, the applicant company Bank of Valletta plc (C 2833) respectfully pleaded:

1. That by means of an application presented on the 24th January, 2017, the appellant Alexie Lapira premised:

That the respondent company Cut Coiffeur Company Limited was incorporated by the interpellant and by the respondent Bajada on the twenty-third (23) of March of the year two thousand and four (2004) with registration C 33501 and has a registered office at the address Door 5, Level 5, Triq ix-Xatt, Tas-Sliema.

That the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the respondent company in force today and attached to the premised were introduced  by resolution  dated 26th April, 2010, and notified to the Registrar of Companies on the 27th April, 2010, by means of which resolution the share capital of the respondent company was varied.

… omissis …

That the principal purpose for which the respondent company was set up was the running of the business of hairdressing, beauty and hairstyling.

That for all the time during which the respondent company ran the said business the interpellant and the respondent Bajada were the sole directors of the company.

This situation was changed when the relationship between the interpellant and the respondent Bajada broke down and the business of the company stopped completely.

That the shareholders of the respondent company made various attempts to reach the voluntary dissolution of the respondent company.

That the respondent company is without directors as the interpellant resigned with effect from the 6th November, 2015, and the respondent David Bajada resigned with effect from the 4th December, 2015.

That furthermore the stopping of trading of the respondent company brought about a situation that the same company cannot pay its debts.

2. Thus for all the reasons above premised the applicant asked the Honourable First Court Civil Hall:

1. To declare and decide that the business of the respondent company remained suspended uninterruptedly in terms of Article 214(2) (a) (i) of the Companies Act;

2. Declare and decide that there exist sufficient grave reasons which justify the dissolution and consequent winding up of the respondent company in terms of Article 214(2)(b) (iii) of the Companies Act;

… omissis …

7. Give all the opportune provisions in this regard.

And this saving every declaration and other orders that this Honourable Court deems fit and opportune.

3. That by means of a provision given by the Honourable First Hall Civil Court on the 27th March, 2018, that Court provided so:

With reference to the third (3) demand, declare and decide that the respondent company cannot pay its debts in terms of Art. 214(2) (a) (ii) of Art. 214(5) (b) of Cap. 386 of the Laws of Malta.

… omissis …

4. Order the Registrar of Court so that within seven days from the date of the same judgement he send to the Registrar of Companies the order for the cancellation of the company Cut Coiffeur Company Limited (C 33501).

5. And order the Registrar of Companies to observe that order.

That the interpellant felt aggrieved by the provision given by this Honourable Civil Court (Commercial Section) on the 26th February, 2019, and is thus filing this humble appeal before the Honourable Court of Appeal based on clear and manifest grievances herein mentioned.

1. That in the first place it is to be pointed out that the interpellant qua creditor of the company Cut Coiffeur Company which was wound up, was not notified at any stage with the procedure of winding up.

It is also stated that despite that the interpellant came to know of these procedures at no stage was it notified with any act presented in the records of the same cause of winding up.

… omissis …

That all this is being stated because the interpellant humbly submits that with the procedure followed by the interpellant qua creditor they were deprived from the most basic rights of audi alteram partem and it had no way to control what happened before the meeting of the creditors above mentioned and then afterwards.

The interpellant is a creditor of the company Cut Coiffeur Company Limited in huge sums as already mentioned and which sum todays amounts to €160,564.83 together with interest from the 13th February 2019, till the date of effective payment.

ii) That subordinately and without prejudice the interpellant from a quick look of the proceedings up to where it was available to it following the delivery of the judgement of the 26th February, 2019, could figure out that there were various assets of the company regarding which the respondents testified and which are in no way liquidated.

iii) That furthermore subordinately and without prejudice this credit is secured by hypothecs and suretyships of the respondents Alexie Lapira and David Bajada as better results from contracts and private writings of suretyship in solidum a copy of which is being hereby exhibited.

iv) That thus the interpellant has every interest to proceed against the surety in solidum of the same company Cut Coiffeur Company Limited.

That it is the humble submission of the interpellant that it was aggrieved and prejudiced by the provision given by the Honourable Civil Court (Commercial Section) of the 26th February, 2019, whereby that Honourable Court freed the liquidator and ordered the cancellation of the name of the company Cut Coiffeur Company Limited, in the humble submission of the interpellant once the credit of the same company is still in force vis a vis the same company.

That in the humble opinion of the interpellant due to the fact alone that the creditors including the interpellant are still executing their credit and this even if ever against  the surety in solidum it cannot be stated that in terms of Art. 264 of Cap. 386 of the Laws that ‘the company affairs are completely wound up’.

It is humbly submitted that the way how things happened in this procedure it was impossible for the interpellant to raise any objection to all that happened once it was in no way notified by any deed which forms part of the records of the same cause in the names above mentioned.

Thus the interpellant whilst referring to the proof produced and producible at this stage including the reference to the evidence of the respondents humbly prays that this Honourable Court of Appeal, annul, revoke and cancel  the judgment given by the Honourable Civil Court  (Commercial section) on the 26th February, 2019, in the names premised Application 73/17 JZM, and send the records of the cause back to the said Honourable Civil Court (Commercial Section) so that this cause be continued according to law with costs of both instances against the  respondents.

Appellants: Bank of Valletta plc, 1/5, Misraħ San Ġorġ, Valletta

Notify Creditors: 

Christian Mifsud, Local Council Valletta and Police Station Valletta

Mirabelle Grech, Local Council Valletta and Police Station Valletta

ADV. FRANK PORTELLI, LLD

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals