Court Notices published in Government Gazette No.21099 of 11th August 2023

ARB_FFO/005/2023– Foreign Freezing Order

IT IS BEING NOTIFIED that by a Cancellation Order dated 1st of June, 2023, issued by the Cologne Local Court, Germany, in the case: 

Tipster Limited, a company bearing registration number C50436 and with its registered office at Melita Court, Level 1, Triq Giuseppe Calì c/w Triq l-Abate Rigord, Ta' Xbiex XBX 1324, Malta.

ORDERED the cancellation of the freezing order on the accounts appertaining to the abovementioned persons and held with local entities up to a limit of €35,144,344.09 and which had prohibited the said accused from transferring, pledging, hypothecating or otherwise changing or disposing of the property in question.

This cancellation of a freezing order is being recognised and executed in Malta according to Chapter 621 of the Laws of Malta, Legal Notice 180 of 2021 (Mutual Recognition of Freezing Orders and Confiscation Orders Regulations, 2021), and European Union Regulations 1805/2018.

Director, Asset Recovery Bureau

By a decree of the 01st August, 2023, given by the Courts of Magistrates (Malta), ordered that the extract hereunder mentioned be published for the purpose of service according to article 187(3) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12).

That by the application filed by Joseph Carmel Gerada (ID 419780M) on the 8th May, 2023, is asking for the withdrawal of the amount of one thousand, seven hundred and eighty six euro and fifty five cents (€1,786.55) deposited by the Schedule of Deposit number 2956/2022 in the names of:

Joseph Carmel Gerada (ID 419780M) vs Shawn Zammit (ID 84482M).

The Court ordered the notification to the counter party with one week to file a reply.

Gaetana Aquilina

For Registrar of Courts and Civil Tribunals

By decree issued by the Civil Court, First Hall, Commercial Section on 10th July, 2023, in the acts of Sworn Application number 42/2023ISB, which was presented on 26th May, 2023, in the names: L-Awtorità ta' Malta dwar il-Logħob vs Betago Ltd was ordered the following publication, pursuant to Article 187(3) et sequitur of Cap. 12 to serve as a notification against the respondent. The applicant asked this Honorable Court to, among others: Order the dissolution and consequent winding up of the respondent company Betago Ltd (C71266).

The Sworn Application in the names mentioned above is postponed to 1st December, 2023, at 9.30 a.m.

Notification Respondent: Betago Ltd, 62, Triq il-Wilġa, St Julian's

Register of the Superior Courts, today 7th August, 2023

CARMEL ABELA, M.SC. IN MANAGEMENT, DPA, DIP. LAWS OF PROCED. (MELIT.)

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

It is hereby notified that by virtue of a decree issued on the 26th July, 2023, given by the Court of Magistrates (Gozo) Superior Jurisdiction, General Section, in the acts of sworn application number 63/2022 in names 'Elaine Doelitzscher et vs Planning Authority et', the hereunder reproduced publication was ordered to serve as a notification with regard to Amadeo Mifsud and his wife Anna Mifsud of 29, Triq Ġorġ Zammit, Ħ'Attard, Malta, and this in terms of article 187(3) of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta.

In the Court of Magistrates (Gozo)

Superior Jurisdiction, General Jurisdiction Section

In the records of sworn application  number 63/2022 BS in the names:

Elaine Doelitzscher et

vs

Planning Authority et

Following the warrant of prohibitory injunction number 15/2022 in the names:

Elaine Doelitzscher

vs

L-Awtorità tal-lppjanar

An application by the Planning Authority in terms of article 836(1) of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta (filed in the Gozo Courts' Registry on the 20th April, 2023)

Humbly submits:

That by virtue of a decree dated 6th May, 2022, this Court acceded to plaintiffs' request for the issue of a prohibitory injunction against defendant the Planning Authority wherein the Planning Authority was ordered not to issue any authorisation or order which would enable the commencement of works in relation to permits bearing the reference number 7693/21 and PA 7468/21. Following the issue of this warrant, the plaintiff proceeded to file a court case where amongst other things they demanded the revocation and annulment of PA 7693/21 and 7468/21.

Request for Revocation of the Said Warrant

That the Planning Authority is requesting the revocation of the said warrant on the grounds identified in article 836(1)(a) and (b).

1. Revocation on the Basis Article 836(1)(a)

Article 836(1)(a) specifies that 'Without prejudice to any other right under this or any other law, the person against whom any precautionary act has been issued, may make an application to the court issuing the precautionary act, or, if a cause has been instituted, make an application to the court hearing such cause, praying that the precautionary act be revoked, either totally or partially, on any of the following grounds:(a) that the precautionary act ceased to be in force.'

Article 843(1) of Cap. 12 which is applicable to warrants of prohibitory injunction by article 876A specifies that the applicant is bound to bring the action in respect of the right stated in the warrant within twenty (20) days from the date of issue of such warrant.

From a detailed examination of the original application filed for the issue of the warrant, plaintiffs based their requests on the fact that the permits issued were going against public policy since they are not respecting the provisions of the Code of Police Laws as well as that the approved permits are allegedly violating plaintiffs' human rights. Since the warrant was acceded to, plaintiffs were legally expected to deduce these same claims in their sworn application.

However, from an examination of the requests being put forward in this court case, it is clear that although plaintiffs filed a court case they did not file a court case on the basis of the right stated in the warrant. This is being said for the following reasons:

a) The court case which was filed is not a human rights case. Indeed, this Court does not have the competence to hear and determine an alleged human rights breach since it does not enjoy constitutional powers. Furthermore, confirmation that the current case is not a human rights case is also provided by the fact that the State Advocate (which is normally cited as defendant when human rights breaches are alleged) is not a party to this suit. If plaintiffs are alleging that they are suffering a human rights breach, they had to initiate the action in the First Hall Civil Court (Constitutional Jurisdiction) and furthermore the action had to be directed towards the State Advocate as defendant and not towards the Planning Authority;

b) Secondly although in the warrant it was alleged that the permits which have been issued go against public policy, no request is being made that Cap. 10 the Code of Police Laws is of a public policy nature. The requests are framed in a way that plaintiffs are suggesting that the provisions of Cap. 10 are creating servitudes in the favour and these servitudes are not being respected. Once again there was no mention of this claim in the reasons which plaintiffs adduced for the issue of the said warrant.

Hence it is quite clear that the court case was filed on grounds which are completely different from the claims being raised in the warrant. Since the justifications cited in the warrant of prohibitory injunction are different from the requests being made in this court case, it follows that plaintiff did not file their court case on the claim being put  forward in the original warrant within the time period established by law. Consequently, this warrant has ceased to have effect since the court case on the same claim mentioned in the warrant was not filed within the twenty (20) day time-period. A court case was filed citing different grounds.

It is true that appeals were filed by plaintiffs before the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal. But these in itself cannot be used as a justification by plaintiffs that they have honoured the requisites of article 843(1) of Cap. 12. This because the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal Act (Cap. 55 1) provides for an ad hoc suspension procedure. Being a special law, it should be given precedence over Cap. 12 which is of a general nature. Hence a warrant of prohibitory injunction cannot be filed and the claim then be referred to the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal.

Revocation on the basis Article 836(1)(b)

Article 836(1)(b) allows the request for revocation of the warrant if 'one of the conditions requested by law for the issue of the precautionary act does not in fact subsist'. The conditions for the issue of a warrant are mainly two: (a) that applicant has a prima facie right; and (b) that secondly his right will be prejudiced if the warrant is not issued.

Before going into the merits of this particular ground, the Planning Authority would like to underline the sequence of events which took place:

a) Permit PA 7693/21 was issued on the 22nd March, 2022, and it was published on the 6th April, 2022;

b) Permit PA 7468/21 was issued on the 22nd March, 2022, and it was published on the 6th April, 2022;

c) The warrant was filed on the 19th April, 2022, and submissions were made to the  Coult on the 4th May, 2022;

The Planning Authority refers to one of the conditions listed in both permits which have been approved precisely this condition: 'In terms of article 72(3) of the   Development Planning Act, 2016, the execution and validity of this permission is automatically temporarily suspended and no works as approved by the said development permission may commence before the lapse of the time period established in article 13 of the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal Act',

This condition is quite clear: although a permit would have been issued, such permit is automatically suspended and no works can be undertaken. This until the 30 day time period mentioned in article 13 of the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal Act (which 30 day time period starts running from the date of publication) lapses. Therefore, at the point in time the warrant was filed and submissions were made the 30 day time period had still not lapsed. Indeed the 30 day time period lapsed on the 6th May, 2022. This means that the warrant was filed at a point in time when both permits were automatically suspended. Hence at that point in time plaintiffs were not going to suffer any prejudice if the warrant was not issued. In legal terms this means that one of the elements of the warrant at the point in time the warrant was requested did not in fact exist. It is humbly submitted that the elements requested for the issue of the warrant of prohibitory injunction have to exist at the point in time the warrant is requested. If they did not exist in the first place, the warrant was issued erroneously. Anything which could have happened after will not suffice to regularise something which was issued erroneously;

Furthermore, it is to be pointed out that the documents which were exhibited during the hearing of the warrant were false and were purposely relaying false information. This is being said for the following reasons:

a) Plaintiffs declared that PA 7693/21 was assessed in terms of article 16(2) of Legal Notice 227 of 2016 when it was assessed in terms of article 16(1) of the same legal notice;

b) With reference both to PA 7693/21 and 7468/21 plaintiffs made a wrongful application of article 16(2) of the same legal notice to the case under examination.  In documents 7693_21B and 7468_21B which form part of Documents AM 5 and AM 4 respectively filed during the hearing of the warrant, the 10.1 meter height indicated in the same article 16(2) was measured from the internal floor of the ground floor garage. This when in terms of article 16(2) this measurement had to be taken from the internal floor of the dwelling, that is the first floor;

This false information was used to relay the existence of a prima facie right. This when in reality the state of affairs was completely different than that which was being portrayed. From a perfunctory examination of the circumstances of this case, it is quite clear that plaintiffs acted fraudulently and consequently they should not benefit from their fraudulent machinations, not even in the context of a warrant.

Request for the Imposition of a Penalty in terms of Article 836(8)(a) and (d) of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta

The Planning Authority refers to the decree given by the First Hall Civil Court on the 10th August, 2012 (Application number 688/2012 JRM) in the names 'Jamar Malta Limited vs Office Group Limited':

'Illi dwar il-kwistjoni tal-impożizzjoni tal-penali, irid jingħad Ii din hija sanzjoni fakoltativa. Il-Qorti, fid-diskrezzjoni tagħha, tista' taqbel li tgħabbi lil min ikun ħareġ Mandat kawtelatorju kontra persuna, u fuq talba ta' din, b'piena ta' ħlas ta' penali. Minbarra li tali impożizzjoni hija fakultativa, irid jintwera għas-sodisfazzjon tal-Qorti li trid Ikun seħħet waħda miċ-ċirkostanzi maħsubin mil-liġi biex tali sanzjoni tiġi imposta. Erbgħa (4) huma ċ-ċirkostanzi maħsuba mil-liġi f'dan ir-rigward u, ladarba huma sanzjoni punittiva, għandhom jitqiesu strettament bħala tassattivi iżda biżżejjed li tirriżulta waħda minnhom biex il-Qorti tista' taċċetta li tqis it-talba għall-kundanna tal-ħlas tal-penali. Dwar din id-diskrezzjoni ngħad li I-Qorti hija tenuta li timponi I-penali fejn ikunu jirriżultaw l-estremi li l-liġi teżiġi biex  din tkun imposta, u I-Qorti tista' biss tagħżel li ma timponix il-penali maħsuba fl-artikolu 836(8) f'każijiet estremi fejn is-sens ta' ġustizzja hekk kien jimponilha. Il-penali maħsuba fl-imsemmi artikolu 836(8) tal-Kap. 12 hija waħda ta' ordni pubbliku immirata li tiżgura serjetà fil-proċess ġudizzjarju u biex ma tħallix li I-istitut tat-Mandati kawtelatorji jintuża b'abbuż.'

Article 836(8)(a) and (d) specify that: 'The Court may condemn the applicant at whose request a precautionary act was issued to pay a penalty of not less than one thousand and one hundred and sixty-four euro and sixty-nine cents (€1,164.69) and not more than six thousand and nine hundred and eighty-eight euro and twelve cents (€6,988.12) in favour of the person against whom the precautionary act was issued, in each of the following cases:

a) if the applicant, without any valid reason, does not bring the action in respect of the claim, within the time established by law …

b) If applicant's claim is malicious, frivolous or vexatious.

The Planning Authority humbly submits that there are sufficient grounds for this Court to apply the provisions in the said articles. As already expounded in this application, the plaintiffs failed to file a court case which was on the same claims as highlighted in the warrant which preceded these proceedings. Secondly, it is quite evident that this warrant was filed maliciously. The way plaintiffs are conducting themselves confirms that they are trying to prolong matters unnecessarily so that permits which were validly issued according to law and according to applicable policies are not executed. It is quite clear that plaintiffs are abusing from the effects of this warrant. Indeed, to make sure that this warrant remains in effect for as long as possible, they are using all imaginable delaying tactics. Protection offered by the law should not be abused and it is for this reason that this penalty should be imposed.

Application of Article 838A of Cap. 12

Alternatively, and should the Court not deem fit to impose the penalty as contemplated in article 836(8)(a) and (d) of Cap. 12, the Planning Authority humbly requests the Court to order the parties suing out the warrant to give, within a time fixed by the Court, sufficient security for the payment of the penalty that may be imposed, and of damages and interest, and, in default, to rescind the precautionary act.

Conclusion

Consequently, for the following reasons the Planning Authority humbly requests this Court to:

1. Revoke and cancel in its entirety the warrant of prohibitory injunction number 15/2022 in the names Elaine Doelitzscher et vs Planning Authority and this on the basis of article 836(1)(a) and/or (b) of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta and consequently issue the relative counter-warrant;

2. To order plaintiffs to pay a penalty of not less than €1,164.69 and not more than €6,988.12 in terms of article 836(8)(a) and/or (d) of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta;

3. Alternatively, and should requests one (1) and (2) not be entertained, to apply the provisions of article 838A of Cap. 12 and this by ordering plaintiffs to give within a time fixed by the Court sufficient security for the payment of the penalty  that may be imposed and of damages and interest and in default to rescind the  precautionary warrant.

With costs of this application against plaintiffs.

(signed) Dr Katrin Busuttil, PL Joelene Pace Ciscaldi

Planning Authority  St Francis Ravelin, Floriana, Malta

In relation to this application, the said Court, issued decree dated the 26th April, 2023, as reproduced below:

The Court,

Whilst noting the application filed by the Planning Authority on the 20th April, 2023;

Orders notification onto Elaine Doelitzscher et and grants her four (4) days to reply.

(signed) Dr Brigitte Sultana, Magistrate,

(signed) Daniel Sacco, Deputy Registrar

Margaret De Battista

Assistant Registrar, for the Registrar

Banns for the Curators

Republic of Malta

To the Executive Officer of the Court of Magistrates (Gozo)

It is hereby notified that by a decree given on 11th of July, 2023, the Court of Magistrates (Gozo), Superior Jurisdiction, Family Section, ordered the publication of the extract reproduced below so that for all effects and purposes of the law serves as a notification according to article 931(3) of the Code of Organization and Civil Procedure, Chapter 12 of the laws of Malta.

By a decree given on 11th of July, 2023, it was ordered that a deputy curator be chosen in terms of law to represent Johnny Hili and this in the acts of the mediation letter number 47/2023 in the names 'Virginia Pace vs Deputy Curators to represent Johnny Hili who lives abroad', filed in the aforementioned Court on the 30th of June, 2023, in which letter it was requested that the Court:

1. In the first place appoints a mediator so that if possible an amicable agreement is reached between her and Johnny Hili, who needs to be represented by deputy curators;

2. In the absence of such an agreement, authorize the petitioner to proceed in the contentious forum,

and this in the acts of the mentioned mediation letter and in all the other relative and subsequent acts.

You, executive officer of the Court of Magistrates (Gozo) are therefore ordered to affix an official copy of this notice at the entrance of this Court and thereby summon anyone who wants to act as a curator to appear within six (6) days in this Registry and files a note declaring that he so accepts.

You are also ordered to inform one and all that if they do not make this declaration within the time given above, this Court will proceed to choose a curator of the office. And after you have done this, or if you encounter any obstacle in the execution of this order, you should inform this Court.

Given by the Court of Magistrates (Gozo) Superior Jurisdiction, Family Section, above mentioned, with the testimony of Magistrate Dr. Simone Grech, BA, LLD, Mag. Jur. (Eur. Law), Magistrate of the aforementioned Court.

Superior Jurisdiction, Family Section

Margaret De Battista

Assistant Registrar, for the Registrar, Courts and Tribunals (Gozo)

By decree issued by the Civil Court, First Hall, on 23rd May, 2023, in the acts of the Sworn Application number 301/23AJD, which was presented on 21st March, 2023, in the names: Mallia Projects Ltd et vs Baldacchino Emanuel et, the following publication was ordered, pursuant to Article 187(3) et sequitur of Cap. 12 to serve as a notification against the respondent. The applicant asked this Honorable Court to, among others: Order the Respondent-Executive Societies to pay the Plaintiff company the sum of one thousand, one hundred and sixty-four euro and sixty-nine cents. (€1,164.69c) and six thousand nine hundred and eighty-eight euro and twelve cents (€6,988.12c) as a penalty according to Article 836(8)(d) of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta.

The Sworn Application in the names mentioned above is adjourned on 19th October, 2023, at 9.30 a.m.

Notification Respondent: Mallia Project Ltd, GT Drive 9, Triq Monsinjur Pawlu Mallia, Gudja

CARMEL ABELA, M.SC. IN MANAGEMENT, DPA, DIP. LAWS OF PROCED. (MELIT.)

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By decree issued by the Civil Court, First Hall, on 7th July, 2023, in the acts of Sworn Application number 86/2023MH, which was presented on 27th January, 2023, in the names: Stivala Jodie Yvonne et vs Barbara Zarb Rosanne et, the following publication was ordered, pursuant to Article 187(3) et sequitur of Cap. 12 to serve as a notification against the respondent. The applicant asked this Honorable Court to, among others: To order the respondents jointly or individually, to pay the applicants the sum of seventeen thousand and five hundred euros (€17,500). With all the costs and legal interests against the defendant who is now summoned so that a reference to her evidence be made.

The Sworn Application in the names mentioned above is postponed to 6th December, 2023, at 9.00 a.m.

Notification Respondent: Rosanne Barbara Zarb, 67, Triq Santa Maria, Paola

CARMEL ABELA, M.SC. IN MANAGEMENT, DPA, DIP. LAWS OF PROCED. (MELIT.)

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals