Court Notices published in Govt. Gazette no 20,538 of 15th December 2020

ARB/C053/2020 – VARIATION OF A FREEZING ORDER 

IT IS BEING NOTIFIED that by a decree dated 19th November, 2020, given by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Inquiry (Magistrate Dr Neville Camilleri LLD). Compilation number 614/2020, in the case: 

The Police 

(Inspector Alfredo Mangion)

Versus

RENALD ATTARD, self-employed, 36 years, son of Raymond and Maria Dolores née Galea, born in Tal-Pietà, Malta, on the 8th October, 1984, residing at Rockap, Fl 4, Triq il-Ġdida, Ħal Luqa, Malta, and holder of Maltese identity card bearing number 499684M.

The Court AUTHORIZED the accused RENALD ATTARD to receive the amount authorized by law which is thirteen thousand, nine hundred and seventy six euro and twenty-four cents (€13,976.24) on an annual basis provided that every financial entity is ordered to present a note by which it informs the Court in which account or from which account these moneys are taken or the accused himself may indicate to the Court from which account they are perceiving the moneys indicated.

This variation is being published in terms of Section 22A of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 101 of the Laws of Malta, and Section 5 of the prevention of Money Laundering Act, Cap. 373 of the Laws of Malta, following a freezing order which decree was given by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Inquiry (Magistrate Dr Marse-Ann Farrugia, LLD) on the 13th November, 2020, which was published in the Government Gazette on the 20th November, 2020, where the court ordered the attachment in the hands of third parties in general of all moneys and other movable or immovable property due or pertaining or belonging to RENALD ATTARD.

THE DIRECTOR, ASSET RECOVERY BUREAU

ARB/C055/2020 – VARIATION OF A FREEZING ORDER 

IT IS BEING NOTIFIED that by a decree dated 19th November, 2020, given by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Inquiry (Magistrate Dr Neville Camilleri, LLD). Compilation number 618/2020, in the case: 

The Police 

(Inspector Steven Ryan Micallef)

Versus

DARKO SMILJANIC, cleaner, taxi driver, construction worker, 31 years, son of Bratislav and the late Dragana née Radenkovic, born in Nis, Serbia, on the 11th March, 1989, residing at 3, Flat 4, Triq Ġorġ Borg Olivier, Tas-Sliema and holder of Maltese identity card bearing number 126326A and Serbian passport bearing number 011923469. 

The Court AUTHORIZED the accused DARKO SMILJANIC the said accused to receive the amount authorized 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.

This variation is being published in terms of Section 22A of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 101 of the Laws of Malta, and Section 23A of the Criminal Code, Cap. 9 of the Laws of Malta, following a freezing order which decree was given by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Inquiry (Magistrate Dr Ian Farrugia, LLD) on the 16th November, 2020, which was published in the Government Gazette on the 20th November, 2020, where the court ordered the attachment in the hands of third parties in general of all moneys and other movable or immovable property due or pertaining or belonging to DARKO SMILJANIC.

THE DIRECTOR, ASSET RECOVERY BUREAU

Bann for Curatorrs

Republic of Malta

To the Executive Officer (Courts of Magistrates) Gozo

It is hereby notified that by a decree dated 9th of December 2020 the court of Magistrates (Gozo) Superior Jurisdiction, General Section, ordered the publication of the extract reporduced 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 9th of December 2020 in the records of the Schedule of deposit and contextual ground rent number 379/2020 by the Court of Magistrates (Gozo), Superior Jurisdiction, General Section upon an application filed by Dr Damien Bigeni on behalf of John Mc Caffery, employed, son of John and Kathleen neè Rafferty, born in Ewry, Northern Ireland and residing at Newry City, Northern Ireland, passport number 516209262; and Deirdre Mc Caffery, wife of John Mc Caffery, employed, daughter of Harry McAreavey and Rosaleen neè O’Hagen, born in Lorga, Northern Ireland, and residing in Newry City, Northern Ireland, passport number 515206293 (holder of identity card no. 4685G) (as verbally authorized) versus Penelope Properties Limited (C3920); of 45, Palm Street, Victoria, Gozo and Deputy Curator in the interest of the heirs of Maria Saveria Grima, unmarried daughter of Francesco Grima and Pawla neè Galea, born in Ta’ Sannat, Gozo; as well as in the interest of the heirs of Joseph, Pauline wife of William Formosa Holt and Helen sive Nellie wife of Dr Lino Sammut, siblings Zerafa, children of the late Joseph Zerafa and the late Emilia neè Grima, born in Victoria, Gozo; other details being unknown; representing redemption of ground-rent as well as ground-rent due in arrear amounting to the sum of eight hundred seventy three euro and fifty cents (€873.50) as described hereunder, filed on the 4th of December, 2020, in the Court of Magistrates (Gozo), Superior Jurisdiction, General Section, as well as the other related and subsequent acts. The applicants respectfully submit:

Whereas applicants own the apartment internally known as apartment number four (4) located on the first floor level of the block without official number but bearing the name ‘Meycar Flats’ in Triq il-Bizantini (formerly known as new street in Triq il-Qsajjem), Xlendi limits of Munxar, Gozo, the whole bounded West by the said street, South by property of George Meylak or his successors in title and North by property of Lawrence Pisani or his successors in title; as better outlined on the plan and site-plan attached herewith as document ‘P’; 

Whereas applicants acquired the said property by virtue of a deed in the records of Notary Michael Refalo of the 4th June, 2004;

Whereas the said property is subject to an annual and perpetual ground-rent of fifteen Maltese Liri (LM15), equivalent to thirty four euro and ninety four cents (€34.94), and therefore amounting to the sum of six hundred ninety eight euro and eighty cents (€698.80) when the said ground rent is capitalised at the rate of five per cent (5%) in terms of law; which ground-rent is mentioned in greater detail in the deed in the records of Notary George Cassar of the 22nd January, 1968, and in the deed in the records of Notary Joseph Spiteri of the 5 December, 1980;

Whereas applicants wish to redeem the said ground-rent in terms of Article 1501 et sec of Chapter 16 of the Laws of Malta;

Whereas for the avoidance of doubt and dispute, applicants are hereby also depositing the sum of one hundred seventy four euro and seventy cents (€174.70) representing ground-rent due in arrears for the past five (5) years;

Whereas Penelope Properties Limited is entitled to the sum of thirteen Maltese Liri and sixty cens (LM13.60) out of the original ground-rent of fifteen Maltese liri (LM15) referred to above, with the balance of one Maltese liri and forty cents (LM1.40) being due to the other respondents;

Whereas and in view of the above, the said Penelope Properties Limited is entitled to seven hundred ninety one euro and ninety seven cents (€791.97) out of the sum being deposited in terms of the present schedule of redemption, with the balance of eighty one Euros and fifty three cents (€81.53) being due to the other respondents;

Whereas applicants were unable to identify the heirs of the said Maria Saveria Grima, Joseph Zerafa, Pauline wife of William Formosa Holt and Helen sive Nellie wife of Dr Lino Sammut, above-mentioned; 

Now, therefore and in view of the aforesaid, and to free themselves of any and all responsibility in terms of law, applicants are hereby redeeming the said ground-rent and are consequently depositing before this Honourable Court the sum of eight hundred seventy three euro and fifty cents (€873.50) representing redemption of ground-rent as well as ground-rent due in arrears as aforesaid, which amount may be freely withdrawn by the respondents, each in their respective share and in full and final settlement.

You, the executive officer of the Court of Magistraes (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 offical 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 Brigitte Sultana, LLD, LLM (Cardiff), Adv. Trib. Eccl. Melit., Magistrate of the said Court.

Superior Jurisdiction, General Section

MAUREEN XUEREB

For the Registrar, Gozo Courts and Tribunals.

ARB/C032/2020 – VARIATION OF A FREEZING ORDER

IT IS BEING NOTIFIED that by a decree dated 1st December, 2020 given by the Criminal Court (Hon. Judge Dr Aaron Bugeja, LLD). In the case:

The Police

(Inspector Claire Borg)

Versus

EDWIN ZAMMIT, police officer, 34 years, son of Saviour and Giovanna née Grixti, born in Tal-Pietà, Malta, on the 3rd July, 1986, residing at 15, Springfield, Triq il-Bżulija, Birzebbuġa and holder of Maltese identity card number 304286M.

The Court acknowledged that the amount mentioned as per freezing order of nine thousand, eight hundred and sixty euro (€9,860) has been deposited at the Courts of Justice (Malta) and is henceforth being held there. Thus, any other moneys and other movable or immovable property attached in the hands of third parties can now be released.

This variation is being published in terms of Section 5 (3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Chapter 373 of the Laws of Malta, following a freezing order which decree was given by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Inquiry (Magistrate Dr Rachel Montebello, LLD) on the 14th September, 2020, which was published in the Government Gazette on the 18th September, 2020, where the court ordered the attachment in the hands of third parties in general of moneys and other movable or immovable property up to a limit of nine thousand, eight hundred and sixty euro (€9,860) which are due to or pertaining to or belonging to EDWIN ZAMMIT.

THE DIRECTOR, ASSET RECOVERY BUREAU

By means of a decree of the 14th July, 2020, of the Rent Regulation Board, in the records of the Application in the names Carmel sive Lino Farrugia et vs Grech’s Limited, Application number 72/2020JD, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of effecting service on the respondent company Grech’s Limited in terms of Article 187(3) et seq uitur of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12)

By means of an application in the names Carmel sive Lino Farrugia (ID 40256M), Alessandro sive Sandro Farrugia (ID 121657M), Joseph Farrugia (ID 51366M), Maria Gabriella sive Mariella Farrugia (ID 448758M) and Angela Incorvaja wife of Mario (ID 197561M) vs Grech’s Limited (C 1863) filed before the Rent Regulation Board on the 26th May 2020, the applicants Carmel sive Lino Farrugia (ID 40256M), Alessandro sive Sandro Farrugia (ID 121657M), Joseph Farrugia (ID 51366M), Maria Gabriella sive Mariella Farrugia (ID 448758M) and Angela Incorvaja wife of Mario (ID 197561M) request with respect and Carmel sive Lino Farrugia (ID 40256M) confirms:

That the respondent company Grech’s Limited acquired by title of lease the premises holding number 154 today 147 in Saint Sebastian Street, Ħal Qormi, rented for commerical purposes and this according to two contract holding the dates 9th November, 1968, and 28th August, 1969, both in the records of Notary Joseph Grech, legal copies of which are here attached and marked as Doc. A and Doc B;

That according to clause 3 of the above mentioned agreement marked A the respondent company obliged itself to pay the rent per year in advance;

That the respondent company is in default of payment for the periods from the 1st July, 2013, till the 30thy June, 2018, in the total amount due of €4614.96 and this although duly official notified to pay the rent due for each of the instalments and as results from the 5 judicial letters dated 28th June, 2018, legal copies of which are here attached and marked as Doc. C till Doc. G;

That although the respondent company was duly notified with each judicial letter above mentioned it remained in default of payment of the rent due for all instalments in the time given to it of fifteen days from the date of notification and this in violation of the dispositions of article 9(a)(1) of Chapter 69 of the Laws of Malta;

That also there is due the rent for the period from the 1st July 2018 in advance;

So on the basis of article 8 and 9 of Cap. 69 of the Laws of Malta, the applicants are exercising their right and are requesting to be authorised by this Honourable Board to terminate this lease and resume possession of the premises and this without prejudice to the payment of arrears from the 1st July, 2018, till the effective date of the vacant possession of the premises, besides any right due to them as owners according to law and this due to the fact that the respondent company failed to pay the rent within fifteen days from notification to pay the rent due for the periods in question according to the judicial letters above mentioned;

That the applicants declare that the respondent company does not have any defences to their requests, and thus this case can be decided in terms of Article 16A of Cap. 69 of the Laws of Malta without proceeding to trial;

That the applicant Carmel sive Lino Farrugia declares and confirms on oath that he knows above the facts personally.

The respondent company has to state why this Honourable Board should not:

1. Determine and decide the case in terms of Article 16A of Chapter 69 of the Laws of Malta without proceeding to trial;

2. Declares that the respondent company failed in the obligations arising in the lease agreement dated 9th November, 1968, and 28th August, 1969, in the acts of Notary Joseph Gatt with legal copies here attached and marked as Doc. A and Doc. B because it failed to pay five instalments of rent in the total amount of €4614.96 repreżenting the rent for all instalments as above mentioned and this as agreed in clause 3 of the lease agreement Doc. A.

3. Declares that the lease of the premises number 154 and 147 in Saint Sebastian Street, Ħal Qormi, has to be dissolved in terms of article number 8 and 9 of Cap. 69 of the Laws of Malta;

4. Declares that the respondent company is in debt with the applicant company in the amount of €4614.96 representing the lease for the period of the 1st July, 2013, till the 30th June, 2018, and any other amout that has to be liquidated by this Board representing the rent for the period of the 1st July, 2018, till the date of the vacant possession and consequently orders the respondent company to pay the applicants this amount and also the liquidated amount;

5. Authorises the applicants to resume possession and consequently orders the eviction of the respondent company from the premises property of the applicants and that is the premises holding number 154 today number 147 in Saint Sebastian Street, Ħal Qormi, and this within a short and peremptory time that is fixed by this Board all as above mentioned and for the reason premised.

With all the costs including those of the judicial letters above mentioned and here attached as Doc. C and Doc. G against the respondent company that its directors are from now summoned so that reference to their oath be made and legal interest from the date of notification of this judicial letter and that is from the 29th January, 2019, till the date of effective payment.

Reserving any other further action by the applicants according to law.

Applicants: 33, Triq il-Kitba, Fgura, FGR 2110

Respondent: 147, St Sebastian Street, Ħal Qormi

The application in the names Carmel sive Lino Farrugia et vs Grech’s Limited Application number 72/2020JD, has been postponed for hearing to the 11th January, 2021, at 9.45 a.m.

ALEXANDRA DEBATTISTA

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree of the 16th June, 2020, in the records of the judicial letter number 400/2020, in the names Wendy Debattista vs David Lauri, the Courts of Magistrates (Malta) ordered the following publication for the purpose of service on the respondent David Lauri in terms of Article 187(3) of Cap. 12.

In the Courts of Magistrates (Malta)

To David Lauri (ID 164777M) of 6, Villa Trieste, Fuq il-Ġonna, Swieqi

By means of this present Wendy Debattista (ID 0346214L) solicits you so that within two (2) days from the notification of this act you pay the interpellant the total amount of €1,496 representing the remaining balance from the value of a bill of exchange dated 6th June, 2019, in the amount of €1,900 (copy of the bill of exchange attached and marked as Doc. WD).

By means of this present the interpellant is rendering executable her executive title here mentioned and this in terms of Article 253(e) of Chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta.

For all the effects and purposes of law you are bieng informed that in terms of Article 253(e) of Chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta you have the right to oppose the execution of this bill of exchange by filing the opportune application according to law within twenty (20) days from the date of notification of this act.

In default of abiding with this letter the interpellant will pass for the execution of her executive title and this in terms of Article 256(2) of Chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta.

This judicial letter is being made in terms of Article 256(2) of the Laws of Malta.

With costs and interest from the date of maturity of the bill of exchange till the date of effective payment.

Interpellant: c/o DF Advoates, Il-Piazzetta, A, Suite 52, Tower Road, Sliema.

Respondent: David Lauri, 6, Villa Trieste, Fuq il-Ġonna, Swieqi

ALEXANDRA DEBATTISTA

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree of the 28th September, 2020, handed down by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) in the records of the judicial letter number 1705/2020 in the names No Deposit Cars Malta Limited vs Alessandro Voccia the following publication was ordered for the purpose of effecting service on the respondent Alessandro Voccia in terms of Article 187(3) et sequitur of Cap. 12.

In the Court of Magistrates (Malta)

To Alessandro Voccia (ID 160116A) of 71, ta’ Ġuljetta, Flat 3, Triq il-Barrieri, Żurrieq

By the present, No Deposit Cars Malta Limited (C85780) of Sharay, Triq il-Fraxxnu, San Ġiljan (hereinafter referred to as the company) is hereby executing and enforcing the following bills of exchange, which bills of exchange are of the total amount of €1,740 (a copy of which bills of exchange is being herein attached and marked as Doc. 1) which bills of exchange have been signed by virtue of the Hire and Purchase agreement dated 21st December, 2019, between the parties (a copy of which is being herein attached and marked as Doc. 2) and are as follows:

1. Bill of exchange number 3 in the amount of €290.00 issued by the defendant in favour of the company, which bill of exchange was due on the 21st February, 2020, and which sum has to date not been paid;

2. Bill of exchange number 4 in the amount of €290.00 issued by the defendant in favour of the company, which bill of exchange was due on the 21st March, 2020, and which sum has to date not been paid;

3. Bill of exchange number 5 in the amount of €290.00 issued by the defendant in favour of the company, which bill of exchange was due on the 21st April, 2020, and which sum has to date not been paid;

4. Bill of exchange number 6 in the amount of €290.00 issued by the defendant in favour of the company, which bill of exchange was due on the 21st May, 2020, and which sum has to date not been paid;

5. Bill of exchange number 7 in the amount of €290.00 issued by the defendant in favour of the company, which bill of exchange was due on the 21st June, 2020, and which sum has to date not been paid;

6. Bill of exchange number 8 in the amount of €290.00 issued by the defendant in favour of the company, which bill of exchange was due on the 21st July, 2020, and which sum has to date not been paid;

This judicial letter is being notified to you in accordance with Article 253(e) of Chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta and if you do not oppose the execution of the above bills of exchange within twenty (20) days from notification of the judicial letter by means of an application filed in the acts of the present judicial act, this judicial letter shall be rendered an executive title against you and therefore the credit being claimed by the Company shall become immediately executable.

Notwithstanding that you have been requested to pay the interpellant according the Payment Schedule (here attached and marked as Doc. 3) and by means of a Statement of Contract (attached and marked as Doc. 4) you have nonetheless remained in default and therefore the Company had to resort to filing this judicial letter against you.

In default the Company shall be proceeding in terms of law without further notice in order to enforce its executive title.

With expenses and legal interest from the expiration of the bills of exchange until effective date of payment.

ALEXANDRA DEBATTISTA

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree of the 6th November, 2020, of the Civil Court First Hall in the records of judicial letter number 2343/2020, in the names GasanMamo Insurance Limited vs Thomas Arnaud, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of effecting service on respondent Thomas Arnaud in terms of Article 187(3) of Cap. 12.

In the First Hall of the Civil Court

To Thomas Arnaud (ID 211480A) of 93, Flat 7, Triq il-Kulleġġ l-Antik, Tas-Sliema

By the present GasanMamo Insurance Limited (C3143) of Triq l-Imsida, Gżira GZR 1405, whilst referring to the car accident that occurred on the 17th November, 2019, in Triq Ġorġ Borg Olivier, Tas-Sliema, and in which accident you were involved while driving the vehicle with registration number CCF 349, insured by you with the interpellant company GasanMamo Insurance Limited, points out for all intents and purposes of law, that you are not covered by the relative insurance policy because of violating various conditions of the same insurance policy amongst them as it results that you were under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident de quo, and this without prejudice for any other violations of the relative insurance policy that may eventually result.

Thus you are being formally warned that in case the company GasanMamo Insurance Limited is obliged to effect any payment on your behalf in terms of Chapter 104 of the Laws of Malta, it is from now reserving it position on your behalf, according to Law and proceed against you for the reimbursement of all the amounts that it is obliged to pay in favour of third parties in connection with this case and this besides the costs and interest according to law.

Thus the interpellant solicits you so that within four (4) days you come forward for the assumption of your responsibility for the payment of any amount that may be liquidated as damages suffered by third parties in the accident de quo and all the relative costs.

This judicial letter is being made for all the effects and purposes of Law and not limitedly in terms of Chapter 12 Cap. 16 and Cap. 104 of the Laws of Malta.

So much to know how to regulate yourself.

With costs

ALEXANDRA DEBATTISTA

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of an application filed in the Civil Court of Voluntary Jurisdiction Section, on the 25th November 2020, Application number 1565/2020, by Maria sive May Micallef et whereby they requested that it will be declared open in favour of Maria sive May Micallef, wife of the decujus in the quota of one half (1/2) undivided share and the remaining one half (1/2) undivided share in favour of Christopher Micallef son of the decujus the Succession of Godwin Micallef, husband of Maria sive May Micallef, son of Emanuel Micallef and Carmela nee Farrugia, born in Birkirkara, Malta, resided in Bidnija, limits of San Pawl il-Baħar, Malta, and died in Msida, Malta, on the 12th April, 2018, aged 64, and who held identity card number 0208754M.

Wherefore any person who believes to have an interest in the matter is hereby called upon to appear before the said Court and to bring forward his objections hereto by a minute to be filed within fifteen days from the posting of the banns and notices according to law.

ALEXANDRA DEBATTISTA

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of an application filed in Civil Court of Voluntary Jurisdiction Section, on the 20th August, 2020, Application number 965/2020, by Carmelo sive Charles Zammit and Raymond Zammit, whereby following the application Giovanna Rosa Zammit, wife of Henry Zammit, daughter of Elia Pace and Carmela Pace nee Saliba, born in Valletta, Malta, on the 11th October, 1937, and residing in Valletta, aged 83, and holding identity card number 736537M, was interdicted from all the acts of the civil life by means of a decree given on the 1st December, 2020.

ALEXANDRA DEBATTISTA

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of an application filed in the Civil Court of Voluntary Jurisdiction Section, on the 1st December 2020, Application number 1596/2020, by Joseph Camilleri whereby he requested that it will be declared open in favour of Carmela Muscat in the quota of one sixth (1/6) undivided share; in favour of the children of the late Amante Camilleri, the latter brother of the decujus in the quota of one sixth (1/6) undivided share between them; in favour of the children of the late John Camilleri the latter brother of the decujus in the quota of one sixth (1/6) undivided share between them; in favour of the children of the late Alfred Camilleri the latter brother of the decujus in the quota of one sixth (1/6) undivided share between them; in favour of the children of the late Gaetan Camilleri in the quota of one sixth (1/6) undivided share between them and in favour of the children of the late Mary Vella nee Camilleri the latter sister of the decujus in the quota of one sixth (1/6) undivied share between them the Succession of Paola sive Pauline Camilleri, unmarried, daughter of the late Antonio sive Anthony Camilleri and Giuseppa sive Josephine nee Spiteri, born in Hamrun, Malta, resided in Mellieħa, Malta, and died in Msida, Malta, on the 8th September, 2019, aged 86, and who held identity card number 104633M.

Wherefore any person who believes to have an interest in the matter is hereby called upon to appear before the said Court and to bring forward his objections hereto by a minute to be filed within fifteen days from the posting of the banns and notices according to law.

ALEXANDRA DEBATTISTA

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree given, by the Court of Appeal, (Appeal from a Decision of the Arbitrator For Financial Services ) on the 1st July, 2020, in the records of the application Mintoff Raymond vs Bank of Valletta plc, Application number 108/18, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent Marcelle Mintoff, in terms of Article 187(3) et sequitur of Cap. 12.

By means of an Application of Appeal, following a decision of the Arbitrator For Financial Services in the Case number 011/2016, in the names Raymond Mintoffr (ID 111326M) which according to the legitimation of the records authorised during the sitting of the 7th November, 2017, was substituted by his wife Josephine Mintoff and his children Christopher Mintoff, Stephanie Mintoff and Marcelle Mintoff ( the complainant or respondent) vs Bank of Valletta plc.(C2833) the applicant Bank of Valletta plc (C2833) ‘The Bank’ (the respondents or the appellant’ in terms of Cap. 255 of the Laws of Malta, respectfully pleaded;

A. Introduction.

1. From a reading of the decision of the Arbitrator one quickly reaches the conclusion that the decision contains serious mistakes of law, the gravest being that a compromise without being put aside (at least formally) is considered as not to constitute a compromise as the compressory caluses are unjust,

C. The Decision of the Arbitrator.

26. The Decision of the Arbitrator in its salient part in the first place rejected all the pleas raised by the appellant amongst which the matter of competence of the Arbitrator to decide regarding the complaints he had before him, that these complaints were compromised and the Arbitrator did not have the competence to enter into the question of the validity or not of the deed of compromise because this is the exclusive competence of the First Hall Civil Court.

… omissis …

D. The Grievances in Brief

32. The grievances are clear and manifest and thus this appeal is being filed.

33. In the first place the Arbitrator completely avoided or did not take consider a number of pleas or submissions of the appellants previously respondents.

34. The Arbitrator made a mistaken evaluation of the law when he decided that,

… omissis …

111. Effectively the Arbitrator adopted the case of the complainant in this regard and it can be said that he completely ignored the reply of the Bank.

112. The Arbitrator adopted the position completely with the factual exaggeration that the complainant was allegedly faced with the possibility and the fear that he shall not recover anything of the investment.

… omissis …

123. The injustice is clear, but in the manner how the Arbitrator proceeded in regard to the appellant.

A Compromise cannot be reviewed under Cap. 378.

124. The principal part of Art 21(2) (a) of Cap. 555 states that the Arbitrator is to refute to exercise his powers when the behaviour in question is or was subject to a cause before the Court or Tribunal.

… omissis …

129. It is submitted that keeping in view this background the contract in vcirtue of which the supplier does not provide any object or service to the consumer but in virtue of which he compromises a dispute regarding an object or service already provided cannot be considered to be a contract which is covered by the said section of Cap. 378.

… omissis …

145. It is the case that the Arbitrator has the functions and the general jurisdiction established in Cap. 555. But if another special law which was not amended when Cap. 555 was promulgated, grants to another Tribunal or Court exclusive jurisdiction on a particular matter then the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator is limited in virtue of that law.

F. The Complainant does not have the juridical interest.

… omissis …

G. The Prescription.

165. The respondent pleaded that the demands of the complainant are prescribed.

.… omissis …

H. Decision whether the complainant was an ‘experienced investor’ when he invested in the fund.

… omissis …

200. The arbitrator made a number of considerations to decide whether the complaint was equitable, just and reasonable.

201.In the first place the appellant submits that the decision of the Arbitrator from this perspective is a clear example of how the arbitrator in order to arrive where he had to, avoided and completely twisted the fundamental principle of the right to a fair hearing and namely that the party alledging is to prove.

… omissis …

222. The fact that the Bank depended on the self assessment of the investor does not bring about to the conclusion that the Bank did not observe the obligation to ascertain that the investment is ’appropriate and suitable’.

1. Mistakes in the Calculations

225. Without prejudice according to the calculations of the appellants the amount of payment that the Arbitrator ordered is mistaken and if ever without prejudice is to be changed to that amount that the appellants are to indicate.

J. Conclusion

226. Every argument of the appellants was avoided by the Arbitrator not because it was bad but it seems that the Arbitrator left from a fixed premise, that the investors were to be considered right.

… omissis …

Thus whilst that the appellants refer to the records of the proceedings, the defences, all the proof brought forward and other documents and whilst reserving to do further submissions if it be the case and bring forward all the further proof according to law which can be brought forward prays that this Honourable Court uphold the grievances or which of them, revoke and cancel the decision of the Arbitrator of the 12th September, 2018, and deciding by upholding the pleas of the appellants or which of them and reject all the demands of the complainant.

With costs of this procedure and the arbitration proceedings against the respondent.

The Application of Appeal number 108/18, in the names Raymond Mintoff vs Bank of Valletta plc has been put off for hearing to the 20th January, 2021, at 8.35 a.m.

Notify: Marcelle Mintoff, 1, Montana, Triq il-Menħir, Marsaskala

ADV. FRANK PORTELLI, LLD

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 28th October, 2020, following a request by Paola Bartolo it was ordered that deputy curators be chosen to represent the absentee John Bartolo in the records of Appeal number 2386/98, in the names Carmelo sive Charles Bartolo pro et noe vs Paola Bartolo et and in the other relative and subsequent acts.

By means of an Application, filed in the Court of Appeal, in the names Carmelo sive Charles Bartolo in his own name and as mandatary of his siblings who are abroad Agostino sive Winston Bartolo, Salvatore Bartolo and by a decree of the 28th June, 2010, the Court ordered that the case proceeds by Joseph Stanley Bartolo, Monica Maria Bartolo and Glorianna Bartolo instead of Salvatore Bartolo who died during the proceedings and John Bartolo and during the sitting of the 31st January, 2000, Agostino Bartolo appeared personally and assumed the acts of the case vs Paola Bartolo, Maria Bartolo, Doris Cuschieri, Emanuel Bartolo and Joseph Bartolo all siblings Bartolo, on the 3rd October, 2014, the applicants Paola Bartolo (ID 179637M), Maria Bartolo (ID 0446342M), Doris Cuschieri (ID 0967246M), Emanuel Bartolo (ID 488944M) and Joseph Bartolo (ID 249549M) requested with respect:

That the case in the names above mentioned, the plaintiffs (now respondents to the appeal application) requested that on the 13th October, 1981, Angela Bartolo mother of the parties, died, that on the 27th June 1984 Joseph Bartolo the father of the parties died; and by a will unica charta dated 22nd April, 1980, in the records of Notary Angelo Vella the late Joseph and Angela Bartolo nominated as their universal heirs all the parties in equal shares between them; that the parties have in common between them the property that they inherited from their parents, and the applicants do not wish to remain in co-ownership with the parties; that notwithstanding that they have been solicited to appear for the division of the hereditary assets of their parents by means of a judicial letter dated 10th August, 1998, the respondents remained in default. They requested the First Court to (i) liquidate the community of acquests previously in existence between the spouses Joseph and Angela Bartolo by declaring that it consists of those items which will result during the proceedings; (ii) divides the community of acquests in two equal portions, such that one of them is assigned to Joseph Bartolo and the other is assigned to his wife Angela Bartolo; (iii) liquidates the particular assets of Joseph Bartolo, by declaring that it consists of half of the community of acquests assigned to him and in those other items which will result during the proceedings; (iv) divides the particular assets of Joseph Bartolo in nine equal portions, which portions are to be assigned to each of the applicants siblings Bartolo by lot; (v) liquidates the assets of Angela Bartolo by declaring that it consists of half of the community of acquests to her assigned and in those items which will result during the proceedings; (vi) divides the assets of Angela Bartolo in nine equal portions which portions will be assigned to each of the parties siblings Bartolo by lot; (vii) nominates architects for the liquidation and division above mentioned; and (viii) nominates a notary to publish the deed of division on the date, time and place ordered by here, and also deputy curators to represent the parties who might eventually fail to appear on the same deed. With costs, including those of the judicial letter dated 10th August, 1998, against the respondents who from now are summoned so that a reference to their oath be made.

By means of their statement of defence, the defendants, now appellants, pleaded in defence that: (i) in the first instance the applicant Carmelo sive Charles Bartolo has to provide a proof of the mandate give to him by the other applicants, all living abroad; and (ii) on the merits, the applicants also agree that the hereditary assets of their parents Joseph and Angela Bartolo have to be liquidated and dividend as long as their wish as expressed in their wills is respected. Save for any other defences.

By means of a judgment given on the 16th September, 2014, the First Court decided the case and (i) declared that the inheritance consists in things that are mentioned in the same judgment; (ii) ordered the respondents so that within thirty days from the date of the same judgment they deposit under the Authority of the Court the items made of gold and which are mentioned in the judgment, and ordered that they are sold by auction after an estimate is made and on a date and time which are still to be fixed upon a request to that effect by any one of the parties; (iii) condemned the respondent/s Paola and Maria Bartolo to pay each of the applicants (four in all) the amount of Lm2,551.4 (€5,942.78) each one of them with interest from the date of judgment, as their share from the income from the fields of Tal-Pwales and (b) Joseph Bartolo to pay each one of the applicants (four in all) the amount of Lm1,275.62 (€2,971.39) with interest from the date of judgement, as their share from the income of the fields of Tal-Pwales. Any claim which the plaintiffs may have for any period from the year 2000, remains unprejudiced; (iv) condemned the siblings Paola and Maria Bartolo to pay each one of their siblings, the amount of €1,811.74 with interest from the date of judgment, as their share of money that were at the house of their parents; (v) in so far as concerns the placing in possession of the legacies, there is an agreement for this to take place. There is no speċifiċi request which deals with this point. The parties can easily ensure that the placing in possession takes place since there is no contestation on this point; and (vi) the issues which relate to: (a) an alleged debt from Nahla Investments Limited; and property which is of the same Company (b) division of the lease of the land at Tal-Pwales and Miżieb, farm and caves; (c) divsion of the sub-direct dominium of the land at Tax-Xatt or Tal-Ħofra, Xemxija, San Pawl il-Baħar, remain unprejudiced. The costs are to be equally dividend between the parties in the sense that each party is to make good 1/9 of the expenses.

That the respondents, now appellants, felt aggrieved by the judgment and therefore are filing his appeal therefrom, before this Honourable Court.

The grievances are clear and manifest and consist in the following:

1. As a result of the appealed judgmnet, the respondents now appellants, Paola and Maria Bartolo were condemned to pay each of the applicants (four in all) the amount of Lm2,551.4 (€5,942.78) each one of them, with interest from the date of judgement, as their share of income from the fields of Tal-Pwales, whilst the respondent appellant Joseph Bartolo was condemned to pay each one of the applicants (four in all) the amount of Lm1,275.62(€2,971.39) with interest from the date of judgement as their share from the income from the fields of Tal-Pwales.

*  … omissis …

2. As a result of the appealed judgement the respondents appellants Paola and Maria Bartolo were also condemned to pay their siblings the amount of €1,811.74 with interest from the date of judgement as their share of money that was found in their parents home.

*  … omissis …

3. Therefore, in view of all the above, the appellants, whilst making reference to all the evidence filed and reserve their rights to file further evidence as allowed by law, humbly request this Honourable Court to vary the appealed judgment by (i) deciding and ordering that amongst the items which the First Court has declared to form part of the estate of the spouses Joseph and Angela Bartolo, the rent which is collected from the lease of the fields at Pwales and Miżieb, a farm which is leased in Pwales, limits of San Pawl il-Baħar and an undivided share of the caves in Pwales, limits of San Pawl il-Baħar are excluded, together with the sum of Lm7,000 in cash which is also to be excluded together with the appealed decision in relation to the items which are to be divided (ii) deciding and ordering that out of the items which were left unprejudiced with the aforementioned judgment, the division of the lease of the land at Pwales and Miżieb, the farm and the caves is to be excluded; (iii) revoking the judgment with respect to the respondents, now appellants, Paola and Maria Bartolo in so far as they were ordered to pay each of the applicants (four in all) the amount of Lm2,551.4 (€5,942.78) (each one, with interest from the date of judgement as their income from the fields of tal-Pwales; (iv) revoking the judgment with respect to the respondent now appellant Joseph Bartolo who was condemned to pay each of the applicants (four in all) the amount of Lm1,275.62 (€2,971.39) with interest from the date of judgement, as their share from the income of the fields of tal-Pwales; and (v) revoking the judgment in so far a sit ordered the respondents, now appellants, Paola and Maria Bartolo to pay each one of their siblings the amount of €1,811.74 and interest from the date of judgement, as their share from the money that were found at home of their parents whilst confirming the judgment in all its remaining parts, and this with costs of the two instances that have to be supported by the applicants, now responding to this appeal.

The appeal in the names Carmelo sive Charles Bartolo pro et noe vs Paola Bartolo et Appeal number 2386/1998, is postponed for hearing to the 12 th January, 2021, at 8.30 a.m.

Applicant: 25, Tower Street, St Paul’s Bay

Respondent 1.  Carmelo Bartolo, Villa Bartolo, Wardija Heights, Wardija

2. Agostino Bartolo, 40 Pwales Rd, St Paul’s Bay

Deputy Curators, Law Courts, Valletta

You are therefore ordered to affix an official copy of this bann at the entrance of this Superior Court and to summon whosoever 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 Court of Appeal, above mentioned, with the witness of the Hon. Mr Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti, LLD,  Doctor of Laws.

ALEXANDRA DEBATTISTA

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of an application filed in the Civil Court of Voluntary Jurisdiction Section, on the 26th November, 2020, Application number 1576/2020, by Margaret Debono whereby she requested that it will be declared open in favour of Margaret Debono, wife of the decujus in the quota of one half (1/2) undivided share and the remaining one half (1/2) undivided share in favour of Mariella Cauchi and Mark Anthony Debono children of the decujus in the quota of one fourth (1/4) undivided share each one of them the Succession of Carmel Debono, son of the late Toni Debono and Michelina Debono nee Fava, born in Birkirkara, Malta, resided in Mosta, Malta, and died in Msida, Malta, on the 1st February, 2020, aged 79, and who held identity card number 105041M.

Wherefore any person who believes to have an interest in the matter is hereby called upon to appear before the said Court and to bring forward his objections hereto by a minute to be filed within fifteen days from the posting of the banns and notices according to law.

ALEXANDRA DEBATTISTA

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of an application filed in the Civil Court of Voluntary Jurisdiction Section, on the 21st February, 2020, Application number 275/2020, by Maria Carmela sive Carmen Ray nee Marquette whereby she requested that it will be declared open in favour of Maria Carmela nee Carmen Ray nee Marquette in the quota of one half (1/2) undivided share and in favour of Samantha Bates nee Ray, Marcus Ray, Alicia Ray and Alana Ray children of the decujus in the quota of one eight (1/8) undivided share each one of them the Succession of Damon Kiron Ray, husband of Maria Carmela sive Carmen Ray nee Marquette, son of Benoy Bhusan and Molina Ray, born in Calcatta, India, resided at Buckinghamshire, United Kingdom, and died at Buckinghamshire, United Kingdom, on the 8th June, 2016, aged 77.

Wherefore any person who believes to have an interest in the matter is hereby called upon to appear before the said Court and to bring forward his objections hereto by a minute to be filed within fifteen days from the posting of the banns and notices according to law.

ALEXANDRA DEBATTISTA

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of an application filed in the Civil Court of Voluntary Jurisdiction Section, on the 1st December 2020, Application number 1599/2020, by Ruth Barbara whereby she requested that it will be declared open in her favour in the quota of one half (1/2) undivided share and the remaining one half (1/2) undivided share in favour of Jaden Barbara, son of the decujus the Succession of Conrad Barbara, husband of Ruth Barbara, son of Albino Barbara and Mary Rose nee Vassallo, born Pieta, Malta, resided in Żurrieq, Malta, and died in Żurrieq, Malta, on the 19th June, 2020, aged 39, and who held identity card number 0365480M.

Wherefore any person who believes to have an interest in the matter is hereby called upon to appear before the said Court and to bring forward his objections hereto by a minute to be filed within fifteen days from the posting of the banns and notices according to law.

ALEXANDRA DEBATTISTA

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of an application filed in the Civil Court of Voluntary Jurisdiction Section, on the 1st December, 2020, Application number 1598/2020, by Josephine Mizzi et whereby they requested that it will be declared open in favour of Josephine Mizzi, wife of the decujus, in the quota of one half (1/2) undivided share and the remaining one half (1/2) undivided share in favour of Francesca Mizzi daughter of the decujus the Succession of Martin Mizzi, husband of Josephine Mizzi, son of Emmanuel Mizzi and Maria Mizzi nee Magro, born in Attard, Malta, resided in Marsaskala, Malta, and died in Msida, Malta, on the 29th April, 2020, aged 50, and who held identity card number 0294669M.

Wherefore any person who believes to have an interest in the matter is hereby called upon to appear before the said Court and to bring forward his objections hereto by a minute to be filed within fifteen days from the posting of the banns and notices according to law.

ALEXANDRA DEBATTISTA

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals