Mur Lura
Court Notices published in Govt. Gazette No. 19,114 of the 26th July 2013
01/01/2013
Notice 1201
1201It is hereby notified that the Court of Magistrates (Malta) by means of a decree given on the 7th May 2013, in the records of the judicial letter number 886/13, in the namesFogg Insurance Agencies Limited vs Kirsty Vella et,ordered the following publication for the purpose of service of the respondent, in terms of Article 187(3) of Chapter 12.
By means of a judicial letter filed in the Court of Magistrates (Malta) against Kirsty Vella and Fabrizio Faniello of Qawra Towers, Flat 12, Triq il-Qawra, San Pawl il-Baħar,on the 13th March 2013, Fogg Insurance Agencies Limited (C-597) for and on behalf of the foreign company Argus Insurance Company (Europe) Limitedof La Concorde, Abate Rigord Street, Ta’ Xbiex, whilst referring to the car accident which occured on the 17th December 2012at about 9.30p.m. in Triq l-Imdina, Żebbuġ, in which you were involved with the vehicle registration number AAA 417, driven by you Fabrizio Faniello and insured by Kirsty Vella with the interpellant, for all purposes and effects of law the accident de quo is not covered by the relative insurance policy, and this because you Fabrizio Faniello were driving the insured vehicle under the effect of alcohol.
And so the interpellant isn’t in a position to answer in any way any claim that may be put forward by third parties involved in this case, and in case that it will be obbliged to effect any payments on your behalf, it is from now reserving its position on your regard according to Law.This means that in case the interpellant is obbliged to make any payments to third parties, it is going to proceed against you in solidum between you for the recovary of all the amounts issued in connection with this case,and this besides all the legal and judicial costs and interests.
Finally, without any prejudice for all above mentioned, the interpellant calls upon you so that within three (3) days you come forward and assume the resonsability for the payments of all the amounts of damages suffered by third parties in the accident de quo and all the relative costs, and informs you that in de fault it is going to proceed with a formal report to the Executive Police regarding your behaviour that costitutes a criminal offence which causes a serious penalty with a fixed penaltyof about €2329.37 and €4658.75 and/or prison sentence of three month, besides the disqualification ofyour driving licence that does not exceed twelve months.These penalties have to be paid by you and suffered besided the amount of damages suffered by third parties, the legal interest and costs already mentioned.
This judicial letter is being made for all effects andpurposes ofLaw, and especiallyChapter 104 ofthe Laws of Malta.
So much so that you may know how to regulate yourselves.
With costs.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1202
1202By means of a decree given by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) on the 22nd March 2013, in the records of the judicial letter number 2759/10 in the names Commissioner ofInland Revenue vs John Mc Cormack, ordered the following publication for the purpose of service of the respondent in terms of Article 187(3) of Chapter 12.
By means of a judicial letter filed in the Courts of Magistrates (Malta) against John Mc Cormack (PB 3622030)of46, Triq il-Mazzola, San Pawl il-Baħar,on the 9th July 2010, the Commisssioner of Inland Revenue of46, Merchants Street, Valletta,for the purposes of Article 466 of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure notifies you with the annexxed sworn declaration Dok A and calls upon you so that within ten days you pay the sum of €4,682.04 as the final tax liquidated and due on documents and transfers in terms of Article 60 of Chapter 364 here annexxed and marked as Dok B.
If you fail to pay or make opposition on your part as per Article 466, the interpellant shall request the issue of executive warrants against youaccording to law.
Pay also the costs of this act.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1203
1203By means of a decree of the 10th April 2013 of the Civil Court First Hall in the records of judicial letter number 106/13, in the names Victor George Delicata vs Antoine Farrugia,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 Antoine Farrugia ofFlat 5, 159, St Paul’s Street, Valletta.
By the present Victor George Delicata (ID 773347M) of The Winery on the Waterfront, Paola, makes reference to the lease agreement of the 29th August 2011 regarding the premisesFlat 5, 159, St Paul’s Street, Valletta, a copy of which is being attached herewith and calls upon you so that you pay the sum of €972.05 representing €750 rent due to him from the 29th August 2012 and €222.05 representing consumption of electricity and water of the same premises.
The applicant warns you that if you do not pay the amount due within fifteen days from the day of notification of this judicial letter he is going to proceedagainst you so that you will be evicted from the premises whilst reserving all action available to him at law for all the amounts due in accordance with the aforementioned agreement.
So much for your own guidance and with costs.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1204
1204By means of a decree of the 9th April 2013 of the Civil Court First Hall in the records of judicial letter number 428/13, in the names Director General of Value AddedTax vs Carmel Spiteri pro et noe,the following publication for the purpose of service of the respondent pro et noe was ordered in terms of Article 187(3) of Chapter 12.
In the First Hall of the Civil Court
To Carmel Spiteri (ID 46150G) in your own name and also as director for and on behalf of Tal-General Company Limited (C24528) ofAmicos Farmhouse, Triq il-Ħwawar, limiti tax-Xwieki, l-Iklin.
By the present the Director General of Value Added Tax of Centre Point Building, Ta’ Paris Road, Birkirkara, calls upon you in terms of Article 59 of Act XXIII of 1998, so that within two (2) days from the service of this act, you pay the amount of €445,366.61 representing amount due by you pro et noeaccording to the same Act.
With costs and interest according to the said Act till the date of effective payment.
This calling is being made for all intents and purposes of law and particularly, but not exclusively, in order to render executive title which the same Director General of Value Added Tax, has against you by means of a notice sent to you.
In default, the interpellant warns you, that he shall pass to execute the said executive title he has against you pro et noe by means of the opportune warrants.
So much so that you may know how to regulate yourself and to proceed.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1205
1205By means of a decree given by the First Hall Civil Court, on the 4th June 2013, in the records the Sworn Application in the names Bank of Valletta plc (C2833)vs Chetcuti Bonavita Kurt et, Application number 435/13 AE, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondents in terms of Article 187(3) of Chapter 12.
By means of an application, filed, in the First Hall Civil Court, in the names Bank of Valletta plc (C 2833) vs Kurt and Alicjaspouses Chetcuti Bonavita (Id numbers 5375(M) and 26024A) on the 8th May 2013, the applicants Bank of Valletta p.lc. asked the defendants to state why this Court should not, uphold the demands of the plaintiff company which is asking this Court;
1.To declare and decide that there occurred one or more of the events mentioned in the private writings mentioned in the application and
2. Condemn Kurt and Alicja spouses Chetcuti Bonavita, to pay together and ‘ in solidum’ between themto the plaintiff company, the sum of thirteen thousand seven hundred seventy nine Ewro and thirty four cents (€13,779.34) balance of debt in the ‘Loan Accounts’ of Kurt and Alicja spouses Chetcuti Bonavita, with the Bank of Valletta plc together with further interest from the 12th April 2013, till the date of effective payment.
With costs, as demanded against the defendants summoned so that a reference to their evidence be made.
Plaintiff company: Bank of Valletta plc ( C 2833)
1/5, Misraħ San Ġorġ,
Valletta, VLT 1190.
Defendants: Kurt and Alicja spouses Chetcuti Bonavita,
25, Flat 5, Triq l-Imrabat,
Sliema.
The Sworn Application in the bnames Bank of Valletta plc (C 2833) vs Chetcuti Bonavita Kurt et, application number 435/13 AE, has been put off for hearing to the 4th October 2013, at 8.45am.
Adv. Frank Portelli,LL.D.
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1206
1206By a decree of the 12th November, 2012 given by the First Hall of the Civil Courts, ordered that the extract hereunder mentioned be published for the purpose of service according to article 187(3) of the Code of Organization and Civil Procedure (Chapter 12).
That by the application filed by Kummissarju tat-Taxxa fuq il-Valur Miżjud on the 25th August, 2010 is asking for the withdrawal of the amount of €3,254.02 deposited by the Schedule of Deposit number 1055/2010 in the names of:
Kummissarju tat-Taxxa fuq il-Valur MiżjudVsJason Sammut pro et noe
The Court ordered the notification of this application with four (4) days for filing a replay.
Marvic Farrugia
For Registrar of Courts and Civil Tribunals
Notice 1207
1207By means of a decree given on the 16th July, 2013, by the Rent Regulation Board, in the records of the Sworn Application, in the names Blackley Co. Ltd. vs Edward Schembri et,application number 72/13 GG, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondents Edward Schembri et, in terms of Article 187(3) of Cap. 12.
By means of an Application filed in the Rent Regulation Board, in the names Blackley Co. Ltd. C 5711 vs Edward Schembri ID 340663(M) and Leslie Schembri ID 715760(M)on the 25th June, 2013, the applicant Blackley Co. Ltd., asked this Honourable Board:
To authorise them not to renew the lease of the shop number 1, Gwardamġa Hill, Pietà the next installment due is on the 10th March, 2014, and authorise them to take back the exclusive possession of it and evict the respondents within a short and peremptory period .
With costs, against the respondents summoned so that a reference to their evidence be made.
Applicant: Bacchi, 42, Triq il-Marbat, Swieqi.
Respondents: a) Edward Schembri, Schabu, 44, Triq ĠużèEllul, Gwardamanġa, PTA 1030.
b) Leslie Schembri, Sacro Cuor, 75, Triq Ta’ Ġiorni, St. Julian’s.
The Application in the names Blackley Co. Ltd. vs Edward Schembri et, application number 72/13 GG, has been put off for hearing to the 14th October, 2013, at 9.00 a.m.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD.
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1208
1208It is hereby notified that the Court of Magistrates (Malta) by means of a decree given on the 19th July, 2013, in the records of the judicial letter number 1921/13, in the namesFogg Insurance Agencies Limited vs Untours Insurance Agents Limited et, ordered the following publication for the purpose of effecting service on the respondents, in terms of Article 187(3) of Chap. 12.
By means of a judicial letter filed in the Court of Magistrates (Malta) against Untours Insurance Agents Limited (as agents of the foreign company QICI International LLC) and Anthony Mifsud of 160, Triq id-Duluri, Pietà,on the 24th June, 2013, Fogg Insurance Agencies Limited (C 597) for and on behalf of the foreign company Argus Insurance Company (Europe) LimitedofLa Concorde, Abate Rigord Street, Ta’ Xbiex and this as subbrogated in the rights of its insured Joseph Spiteri, on the basis of a comprehensive type of policy and of law and the same Joseph Spiteri (ID 641556M), whilst refering to the car accident which occured on the 14th August 2011 at about 1.30a.m. in Triq Mikiel Anton Vassalli, San Ġiljan between the vehicle registration number LGY 202, insured by Untours Insurance Agents Limited (as agents of the foreign company QICI International LLC) and driven by you Anthony Mifsud at the time of the accident and the vehicle property of the applicant Joseph Spiteri with registration number DNL 608,calls upon you in solidum between you so that within three (3) days you come forward for the liquidation and payment of damages suffered as a result of the said accident, which accident occured solely because of your carlessness,negligence and lack of observance of the traffic regulations on your part Anthony Mifsud.
The interpellant informs you that in case that the time given to youpasses uselessly, they will have no alternative but to proceed furtherly against you by all means given by Law.
So much for your own guidance and to avoid costs and further procedures.
This judicial letter is being made particularly, but not limitedly, for the purpose of interrupting prescription in terms of Chap. 12 and Chap. 16of the Laws of Malta.
With costs and legal interest.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1209
1209NOTICE
CIVIL COURT (FAMILY SECTION)
Whereas the plaintiff Nathaniel Caruana (I.D. 224993M) filed an application under oath (No. 139/13RGM) demanding CORRECTIONS in the ACT OF BIRTH of the minor child Faith Grixti number 3038/2013 in the Public Registry.
Whosoever may have an interest therein, and wishes to oppose that demand, is hereby called upon to do so, by means of a note to be filed in the Registry of these Courts, within fifteen days from the day of the publication of this present notice in the Government Gazette.
Those who, within the aforesaid time, shall have filed such note, shall be notified by the service of a copy of the said application under oath, of the day which will be appointed for the hearing of the case.
By order of the Court,
Cora Azzopardi
For Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1210
1210By means of a decree given, on the 2nd July 2013, by the Court of Appeal, in the records of the Appeal, in the names George Schembri vs Mark Portelli, application number 1602/93 AF, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent George Schembri, in terms of Article 187(3) of Cap. 12.
By means of an Appeal Application, filed, in the Court of Appeal, in the cause in the names Writ of Summons number1602/93 AF, George Schembri vs Mark Portelli, Decided 10 th April 2013, the applicant Mark Portelli, respectfully pleaded;
Thatby means of a writ of summons in the names above premised the plaintiff George Schembri, now respondent, after having premised that he was employed with the firm Raffaele Portelli and Sons (1917) property of thedefendant Mark Portelli, now interpellant or rather applicant, and operated by the same appellant, asked the Court of First Instance, to condemn the appellant to pay him the sum of €1,153.72 representing, balanceof differencein the salary, bonus, allowance, leave and commission allegedly due to the same respondent by the appellant;
That by means of his note of pleas the appellant, pleaded amongst others that he was not a debtor of the respondent, as any wages, bonus, allowance, leave and commission which may be due to the respondent and resulting from his employment with the appellant, had been paidat the termination of his employment, of the same respondent.
That by means ofa judgement of the 10th April 2013, the Court of First Instance decided this dispute in the following manner;
‘Thus the Court decides by whilst rejecting the second plea of the defendant it upholdsthe demand of the plaintiff and condemns Mark Portelli, pays George Schembri the sum of (€1,153.72).
The costs of the cause are to be paid by Mark Portelli.
That the Court of First Instance reached this decision after it adopted in their entirety the considerations and conclusions of the Legal Referee, as deducted in the relative report.
That the appellant feels aggrieved with the said judgement and is thus filing this humble appeal;
That in the humble opinion of the appellant, the Legal Referee, and consequently the Court of First Instance, caused grievous prejudice to his rightswhen it went against certain norms of law and procedure which are well established in our legal system.
That infactthe grievances of the appellant are clear and manifest and consist in the following:
1.No Amount is Due.
That it clear results from the proof produced as duly acknowledged by the able Legal Referee and by the Court of First Instance,that with the termination of the employment of the respondent, the same respondent was still owed the amount of €1,447.22, from the appellant, but because the appellant had paid the amount of €232.94 and €60.56, during a period following the same termination, the demand of the respondent was reduced to the sum of €1,153.72.
...omissis...
That the able Legal Referee concluded as did the Court of First Instance, that the second plea of the appellant or rather the amount demanded by the respondent had already been paid and should be rejected and this principally for the following reasons:
...omissis...
ii. The evidence of John Bajjada produced by the defendant is not trustworthyand cannot be relied on;
The able Legal Referee upheld that this witness appeared confused, takes a long time to answer simple questions and appeared frightened and frequently looks to the appellant before answering the questions.
...omissis...
In the humble opinion of the appellant that reported by the Legal Referee and on which the Court of First Instance relied, is not reflected in the minutes of the sittings;
Apart from this the transciption of the evidence of this witnessdoes not result uncertainor approximativebutto be a clear deposition and directed to give an exact picture of what effectively took place between the present parties.
...omissis...
Although the behaviour of a witness whilst testifying has its relevance, in order that an Adjudicator avoids a deposition which constitutes a basic proof of one of the contending parties, in circumstances whereby the witness and the respondent are both employees ofthe apppellant and are both no longer employed with him he has to be very careful in the interpretation of the behaviour of the witness and in casethat there results a circumstance during the depostion which can affect the credibility of the witness such circumstance should be drawn up by a separate minute.
Saving that above premised such minute was not made in the present cause.
Apart from this the appellant with all respect refers to paragraph 154 of the report of the able Legal Referee, in the cause between the same parties, commenced by means of writ of summons 24/94 AF, in the inverted names ...omissis... within which the same Legal Referee felt that the witness John Bajjada had to testify and elaborate further regarding the allegations of George Schembri.
In fact the able Legal Referee textuallyupheld the following in this regard;
‘The interpellant is of the opinion that the absolute default on the part of the plaintiff to take a confirmation from his witness John Bajjada, regarding whether the objects merit of this casue were returned to him or not from the defendant is a serious deficiency because this had to be the principal proof in this cause’.
With the due respect, here it is a case of the same witness or rather the same John Bajjada and the same affidavit or rather the same evidence given by the same witness and thus it is a clear contradiction onthe part of the able Legal Referee, that whilststating that this witness is not to be reliedon in the present cause, she qualifies as a serious default on the part of the present appellant in the other cause mentioned 24/94 AF which was not confirmed, or rather did not base her thesis in a more solid form, on the evidence given by the same John Bajjada, as he did in the present case.
Finally the appellant, makes humble reference to the last paragraph of the affidavit of the witness John Bajjada, whereby he explained that he had been approached by the respondent so that in the present cause ‘against Mark Portelli’ and namely against the interpellant and this in circumstances where the same respondenthad to tell him what to say in his deposition’.
...omissis...
Howeverthis should not have brought about so that the evidence given by him be considered as such as ‘not being trustworthyand cannot be relied upon’ as concluded by the able Legal Referee and consequently as concluded also by the Court of First Instance’.
(iii) Once the appellantupheld in his affidavit ‘that a problem could have cropped up’ he should have asked for some form of receipt from the respondent’.
The appellant, upholds that he had paid all the amount due to the respondent in the office of the firm Raffaele Portelli and Sons (1917) and this in the presence also of John Bajjada and the latter on his part also confirms this fact.
iv. Oliver Pulis, brought forward by the appellantdid not confirm that the respondent had declared with him that he had been paid everything.
In the humble opinion of the appellant the evidence given by Oliver Pulis, should not have been considered as one to weaken his version, but one which which confirms the correctness of the appellant.
...omissis...
Oliver Pulis infact declared the following;
‘The said George Schembri never upheldwith Mark Portelli that he was convinced from the sum he was expecting from him because he had not replied to the comment of Mr. Portelli, that he had already takenthis money’.
Apart from this the same witness upheld textually as follows in his affidavit;
‘I remember that Mr. Portelli, was upholding with George Schembri that he owed him only a small amount of money, a small sum of not more than €69.88 but George Schembri, had replied to him that he had followed the advice of the Labour Office to note down everything and ‘then we shall see’.
The above had to confirm the thesis of the appellant.
Infact this was confirmed by the judgement ofthe Court of Magistrates (Malta) presided by Magistrate Dr. Silvio Meli, now a Judge, whereby the present appellanthad been accused that he had not paid the respondentthe sum of €1447.22 the appellant had been freed from all the charges brought against him, except that relating to the amount of €60.56.
...omissis...
That in the humble opinion of the appellant in order that one may establish which versionis more likely and credible it would have been usefulthatthe evidencegiven by the respondent in cross-examination in paragraphs enumerated in the report of the able Legal Referee where one finds the following is given;
...omissis...
That the respondnt upholds the above by his oath and this in support of the plaintiff’s demands which had to be proved according to the grade required by law.
That it is clear and manifest that such deposition does not do much honour to the thesis of the respondent which thesis howeverwasheld more likely and credible from that of the appellant. And this when it results clear and manifest that the same respondent is totally confused regarding various aspects such as ‘leave’ and payments which were made by the appellant, in circumstances where such aspects are rather determiningto the demands as brought forward by him in the original writ of summons of the cause.
That such proof consists amongst others in the following:
i ...omissis...
ii ...omissis....
iii. Reference was also made including the affidavit of the appellant in the criminal proceedings in the names ‘ The Police vs Mark Portelli’ decided by Magistrate, now Judge Dr Silvio Meli, on the 13 th July 1993.
In fact it was confirmed by the witness Mario Caruana, on the 18th March 1999, an official of the Labour Office, which assisted in the prosecution in that cause, that the appellant had been freed from all the charges brought against him saving the sum of €60.56.
...omissis...
Infact the appellant, had been condemned to pay onlythe sum of €60.56 representing €1.16 increase in wages during the year 1992 from the global sum of €1447.22.
iv. Affidavit of Oliver Pulis, to which reference was made in this appeal together with an affidavit of Connie Mizzi, in virtue of which the witness confirmed that the commission due to the respondent by the appellanthad always been paid as due.
That in the light of the above the appellant is of the humbly opinionthat his defence was amply proved and thus it clearly results that no amount is due by the respondent and this as amongst others his version was that version which should have been retained as likely and credible.
That for these reasons the appellant is of the humble opinion that the Court of First Instance, had to pass onso that saving the upholding of his plea, it rejectsthe plaintiff’s demands as deduced.
ii. Interests.
That without prejudice to the above, theCourt of First Instance, condemned the appellant, to pay together with the sum of €1,153.72, the interests, as demanded in the writ of summons of the cause.
That effectively the respondent had asked that the interests from the date of filing of the said writ of summons or rather the 21st December 1993, tillthe date of effective payment;
That the above means that according to a judgement of the Court of First Instance, the appellant, was condemnedto pay €1,153.72 as capital together with interest for about twenty (20) years interest on the same sum, which interests amount to the sum of ċirka €1,845.96 and namely more than the same capital.
That this part of the judgement appealed is in the humbly opinion of the appellant incorrect as any interests which may be due by the appellant should never exceed the capital;
Thus the applicantwhilst referring to the evidence and all the documents exhibited and whilst reserving the right to bring forward furtherproof and evidence according to law, respectfully ask this Honourable Court, whilst upholding this appeal,to cancel and revoke the judgement appealed, of the 10th April 2013, given by the First Hall Civil Court, in the names premised and reform the judgement appealed, as demanded in this application, with costs both of the first instance and of the present instance at the charge of the same respondent.
Appellant: Raffaele Portelli & Sons (1917), 78/79, Merchants Street, Valletta.
Respondent: Shilly Sally, Triq il-Molletta, Swieqi.
Adv.Frank Portelli,LL.D.
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1211
1211By means of a decree given, on the 31st May, 2013, by the Civil Court ( Family Section) in the records of the Sworn Application, in the names Zahra Orazio vs Zahra Catherine, application number 65/13 RGM, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent Catherine Zahra,in terms of Article 187(3) of Cap. 12.
By means of an application filed in the Civil Court ( Family Section) in the names Orazio Zahra (ID 44161M) vs Catherine Zahra (ID 154859M)on the 6th February, 2013, the applicant Orazio Zahra,holder of identity card number 744161M, in terms of Article 66A of Cap. 16 of the Laws of Malta asked this Honourable Court:
a)To declare thatthe marriage contracted betwen the parties on the 15th May 1982 be dissolved and declared as dissolved and uphold the other demands in the application.
Applicant: Orazio Zahra, Marine Court, Block D, Flat 8, Triq il-Gidwet, Marsaskala.
Respondent: Catherine Zahra, 154, Triq Manuel de Vilhena, Gżira.
The Sworn Application in the names Zahra Orazio vs Zahra Catherine, application number 65/13 RGM, has been put off for hearing to the 8th October 2013, at 9.00 a.m.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LL.D.
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals