Go Back
Court Notices published in Govt. Gazette No. 19,324 of 14 October 2014
01/01/2014
Notice 1583
1583By means of a decree of the 7th October, 2014, of the Civil Court First Hall, in the records of judicial letter number 2460/14, in the names Elton Joseph Caruana et vs F.C.S. Ltd,the following publication was ordered for the purpose of effecting service on the respondent in terms of Article 187 (3) et. seq. of Cap. 12.
In the First Hall of the Civil Court
To: F.C.S. Ltd (C 41700), of 44B, Lord Byron Street, Birguma, Naxxar NXR 4142.
By the present, Elton Joseph Caruana (ID 137275M) and Ekaterina Caruana (ID 47756A), of 19, Triq Bieb Bormla, Bormla, whilst referring to the contract of works dated 5th October, 2009, in the records of Notary Doctor Carmel Gafà (Doc. A), and also to the private writing dated 16th October, 2006, drafted by Notary Dr Carmel Gafà (Doc. B), informs you that by means of this act, you obliged yourself to construct, finish and complete in a finished state:
(a) The maisonette in the groundfloor level, in Triq id-Denċi, Mellieħa; and
(b) The garage at the semi-basement level; and
(c) The store underneath it and the back yard, which store is accessible from the same garage in the same street.
Belonging to the applicant, all forming part of a block that has to be built by you on the land known as “Is-Sellum”, in the limits of Mellieħa, measuring 114.29 square metres, land which can be developed of 32.62 square metres, which land is intended for the formation of a road, and which is bounded from the South with Triq id-Denċi, from the East with property of George Portelli or his successors in title, and from the North with property of MMGB Company Limited or its successors in title, or other boundaries.
As indicated in the contract of works dated 5th October, 2009, the works are paid in full and final settlement in the amount of €46,587.47.
In addition, according to the same contract you entered into an obgliation to complete the works in accordance with the art and trade by not later than one year which started to run from the date of the publication of the contract subject to a penalty of not less than €120 per day for every day of delay for mere delay.
Notwithstanding that the time stipulated in the contract of works has lapsed, you failed to execute the works in accordance with the same contract of works, and till today no works has been carried out by you.
Accordingly, by means of this present, the applicants are formally informing you that they are terminating the contract of works with immediate effect as regulated by the contract dated 5th October, 2009, and 16th October, 2006, and solicit you so that within one week from notification of this judicial letter:
(a) You come forward and appear on the publication of the relevant contract for the rescission of the contract of works dated 5th October, 2009, in the records of Notary Carmel Gafà; and
(b) You refund the applicants or any one of them the amount of €46,587.47 representing the amount paid by the applicants in settlement for the works in question; and
(c) You come forward for the payment and the liquidation of the penalties representing the penalties due to the applicants calculated from the date when you had to finish the works in terms of the contract of works up until the date of this judicial letter (which is the date when the contract of works is being terminated – see Galea Mario et vs Casha Renald et – First Hall Civil Court – 31/10/2001), and this for your delay in the execution and completion of the works, which penalties are not less than €120 per day of delay in terms of the same contract.
If you remain in default within the time given to you, the applicants will have no alternative but to initiate the appropriate judicial proceedings against you including the issue of the warrants.
So much for your own guidance and to avoid further costs.
This judicial letter is sent to you according to law.
With costs.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1584
1584By means of a decree given by the Court of Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction), on the 1st October, 2014, in the records of the Application, in the names Euro Concrete Blocks Limited vs A. Montebello Tyres Limited and Charles Mangion, Application number 419/2011, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent Charles Mangion in terms of Article 187 (3) et. seq. of Cap. 12.
Whereas the procedures in writing in the cause before the Court of Appeal between Euro Concrete Blocks Limited vs A. Montebello Tyres Limited and Charles Mangion, the Court fixed the hearing of the cause on Wednesday, eleventh (11th) of June, 2014, at 9.00 a.m.
By order of the Court of the 11th June, 2014, the cause was deferred for hearing to the 9th July, 2014, at 9.00 a.m. and subsequently deferred to the 29th October, 2014, at 9.00 a.m.
Notify: Charles Mangion, ‘Villa Alfano’, Triq Hanibal Preca, Lija.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1585
1585It is hereby notified that the Court of Criminal Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction), on the 3rd October, 2014 delivered a judgement in the case:
The Police (Inspector Frank Anthony Tabone)
Versus
Louis Attard, son of Joseph, born in Victoria, Gozo, on the 19th December, 1981 (identity card number 3582G).
Whereby the said accused Louis Attard was condemned in terms of Article 109 of Cap. 9 of the Laws of Malta to the general interdiction as well as interdiction to serve as witness except in a Court of Law, and to serve as referee for a period of ten (10) years.
Court of Criminal Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction), this 3rd October, 2014.
Dr Mary DeBono Borg LLD
Director General and Registrar Gozo Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1586
1586It is hereby notified that the Court of Criminal Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction), on the 3rd October, 2014 delivered a judgement in the case:
The Police (Inspector Frank Anthony Tabone)
Versus
Piu Attard, son of Laurence, born in Victoria, Gozo, on the 18th May, 1960 (identity card number 32560G).
Whereby the said accused Piu Attard was condemned in terms of Article 109 of Cap. 9 of the Laws of Malta to the general interdiction as well as interdiction to serve as witness except in a Court of Law, and to serve as referee for a period of ten (10) years.
Court of Criminal Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction), this 3rd October, 2014.
Dr Mary DeBono Borg LLD
Director General and Registrar Gozo Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1587
1587By means of a decreegiven on the 7th August, 2014, by the Civil Court First Hall, in the records of the Sworn Application, in the names Rebecchi Eileen noe vsAl-Bitar Rosso Maria Lourdes, Application number 589/14 LSO, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent Maria Lourdes Al Bitar Rosso in terms of Article 187 (3) et. seq. of Cap. 12.
By means of a Sworn Application filed in the Civil Court in the names Eileen Rebecchi (ID 87955M) as mandatary of the absent Jean Kuch, Christopher Aquilina Roberts, Doreen Bollinger and Moira Heidel, siblings Aquilina, Roberts vs Maria Lourdes Al-Bitar Rosso, known also as Mary Rosso (ID 615158M), on the 2nd July, 2014, the applicant Eileen Rebecchi nomine asked this Honourable Court:
To declare that the respondent does not have a right to extend the lease that her mother had on the premises 9, Rue D’Argens, and with other doors numbers 1, 3 and 5 (previously 1, 2 and 3), Triq Johnny Catania, previously Sqaq D’Argens, Msida, and this for the reasons mentioned in the application, and uphold the other demands in the application, including the payment of damages liquidated.
With costs against the respondent summonedso that a reference to her evidence be made, and saving any other action due to the application.
Respondent: 9, Rue D’Argens, Msida.
The Sworn Application in the names Rebecchi Eileen noe vs Al-BitarRosso Maria Lourdes, application number 589/14 LSO, has been deferred for the 27th November, 2014, at 9.30 a.m.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1588
1588By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal, ofthe 30th October, 2013, the publication of the following extract was ordered for the purpose of service in terms of Article 187 (3) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12).
Go plc (C 22334), ofTriq Fra Diego, Marsa MRS 1501,filed a Claim, on the 1st October, 2013, whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn King Paola Louise (ID 58230A),of Meridian, Flat 6,Triq is-Sikka, Marsaskala, to pay the plaintiff company the sum of€767.46, which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With costs and legal interests.
The case (Claim Number 641/13KPS) is deferred for the 21st October, 2014 at 12.30 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1589
1589By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal, ofthe 30th October, 2013, the publication of the following extract was ordered for the purpose of service in terms of Article 187 (3) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12).
Mobisle Communications Limited (C 24655), ofTriq Fra Diego, Marsa MRS 1501, filed a Claim, on the 24th September, 2013 whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Alan Robert Frendo (ID 428108L),ofHighland, Flat 1, Triq Raddiet ir-Roti, San Pawl il-Baħar, to pay the plaintiff company the sum of€362.61, which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With costs and legal interests.
The case (Claim Number 599/13KPS) is deferred for the 21st October, 2014 at 12.30 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1590
1590By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal, ofthe 3rd February, 2014 the publication of the following extract was ordered for the purpose of service in terms of Article 187 (5) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12).
Mobisle Communications Limited (C 24655), ofTriq Fra Diego, Marsa, MRS 1501,filed a Claim, on the 1st October, 2013, whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Kurt Mario Bezzina (ID 397488M),for and on behalf ofKMK Limited (C 50774), of66, Cospicua Road, Raħal Ġdid,to pay the plaintiff company the sum of €1,893.89 which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With costs and legal interests.
The case (Claim Number 635/13KPS) is deferred for the 21st October, 2014 at 12.30 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1591
1591By means of a decree of the 16th July, 2014, of the Civil Court First Hall, in the records of judicial letter number 2067/14, in the names Ahmet Adam Eretegrul vs Sharif Said Mohammed Osmani El Sharef et,the following publication for the purpose of effecting service on the respondents was ordered in terms of Article 187 (3) of Cap. 12.
In the First Hall of the Civil Court.
This judicial letter is being made in terms of Article 253 (b) of Cap. 12 of the Laws ofMalta.
To: Sharif Said Mohammed Osmani El Sharef and Svetlana El Sharef; and
Joseph Micallef (ID 862354M) and Rita Micallef (ID 501557M) of 22, Flat 7, Isola Mediterranea Bouverie Street, Gżira.
By the present, Ahmet Adam Eretegrul, of 280, Republic Street, Valletta,reference is made to the constitution of debt deed in the records of Notary Dr Pierre Falzon, dated 13th September, 2013, which copy is attached and marked as Doc. A.
Whereas you failed to honour the said deed, and this because until today you paid only the sum of €2,000 and so you are in debt with the applicant for the sum of €148,000.
By means of this judicial letter, the applicant solicits you so that within two (2) days from the date of notification of this letter, you pay the sum of €148,000 with interest according to the constitution of debt deed mentioned.
In default, the applicant will proceed further against you without further notice, and with all the means permitted by law including the issue of the opportune warrants.
The amount above mentioned is all due by you, which amount is certain, liquid and due, and you failed to pay without any valid reason at law notwithstanding the fact that you were called several times to pay.
This letter is being made for all effects and purposes of law so that the said deed will be made executable in terms of Article 253 (b) of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta.
So much for your own guidance.
With costs and interest till the date of effective payment.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1592
1592It is hereby notified that the Court of Magistrates (Malta), by means of a decree given on the 21st July, 2014, in the records of the judicial letter number 970/13, in the namesDirector of the Department of Manufacture and Services vs Francis Sammut et, ordered the following publication for the purpose of service of the respondent Francis Sammutin terms of Article 187 (3) of Cap. 12.
By means of a judicial letter filed in the Court of Magistrates (Malta) against Francis Sammut (ID 592653M), of Il-Ġnejna, Triq in-Namur, Iklin, and Elmo Insurance Limited, on the 22nd March, 2013, the Director of the Department of Manufacture and Services, of Troubridge Street, Albert Town, Marsa, whilst referring to the vehicle accident which occured on the 8th April, 2011, in Triq l-Assedju l-Kbir, Floriana, when you collided in the vehicle with registration number GBB 684 driven by Mr Peter Paul Bugeja with the consequence that you caused damage on the said vehicle GBB 684, property of the applicant.
Thus, the applicant calls upon you so that within five days from the date of this letter you come forward to pay the amount of €1,838.79 or another sum, representing the damages caused in the vehicle GBB 684 of the applicant, as a result of this accident that occured solely because of failure to observe the traffic regulations, lack of skill and carelessness on your part.
In default of payment on your part to the applicant in the time given to you, further procedures will be taken against you according to law without further notice.
Elmo Insurance Limited is also being notified and solicited so that it will come forward for the payment for any purposes of law.
With costs of this present and legal interest till the date of effective payment.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1593
1593By means of a decree of the 30th September, 2014, in the Court of Magistrates (Malta) in the records of the judicial letter number 2364/14 in the names Bank of Valletta plc vs Stefan Caruana, ordered the following publication for the purpose of service of the respondent in terms of Article 187(3) of Cap. 12.
By means of a judicial letter filed in the Courts of Magistrates (Malta) against Stefan Caruana (ID 339985M), of64, Triq il-Gandoffla, Birżebbuġa, on the 10th July, 2014, Bank of Valletta plc, of1/5 Misraħ San Ġorġ, Valletta VLT 1190, calls upon you so that within two days you pay the sum of €3,588.77 balance of debt in your Loan Accountwith Bank of Valletta plctogether with further interests from the 28th March till the date of effective payment.
The interpellant company warns you that if you fail, they shall be constrained to proceed against you according to law.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1594
1594By means of a decree of the 27th June, 2014, in the Court of Magistrates (Malta) in the records of the judicial letter number 1900/14, in the names Bank of Valletta plc vs Jacqueline Fenech, ordered the following publication for the purpose of service of the respondent in terms of Article 187 (3) of Cap. 12.
By means of a judicial letter filed in the Courts of Magistrates (Malta) against Jacqueline Fenech (ID 655863M), of193, Triq Lampuka, Paola,on the 28th May, 2014, Bank of Valletta plc, of1/5, Misraħ San Ġorġ, Valletta VLT 1190,calls upon you so that within two days you pay the sum of €8,597.82 balance of debt in your Loan and Credit Card Loan Accounts with Bank of Valletta plc together with further interests from the 6th March, 2014, till the date of effective payment.
The interpellant company warns you that if you fail, they shall be constrained to proceed against you according to law.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1595
1595By means of a decree given on the 18th September, 2014, by the Court of Appeal, in the records of the Appeal Application, in the names Rita Schembri pro et noe vs Joseph Schembri, Application number 769/03, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent in terms of Article 187 (3) et. seq. of Cap. 12.
By means of a Reply filed in the Court of Appeal, in the records of the Appeal Application, in the names Rita Schembri in her own name and as curator ad litem of her minor children Janelle and Charlton, siblings Schembri, vsJoseph Schembri, on the 23rd January, 2014, the interpellant Rita Schembri (today Azzopardi), (ID 339384M),filed an answer for the appeal application of Joseph Schembri (ID 435060M), dated 19th December, 2013, where respectfully pleaded:
That by means of a decision given on the 29th November, 2013, the Honourable Civil Court (Family Section) decided by upholding the first demand of the plaintiff in the sense that the defendant was found exclusively guilty of the separation between the partes, and this from the 30th September, 2002, abstained to take cognisance of the second demand of the plaintiff ...omissis... and rejected the seventh demand of the plaintiff with all costs at the charge of the defendant.
That the appellant felt aggrieved with this judgement. and is filing an appeal therefrom.
That the judgement given by the Honourable First Court is just and merits to be confirmed (saving what shall be said in the incidental appeal), and this for the following reasons.
The First Grievance
That in virtue of the first grievance, the appellant is upholding that since the marriage between the parties was declared null by the Court of Appeal, on the 5th April, 2010, and because the lawsuit reduced itself into one of patition of property forming part of the community of acquests which existed before this had to preclude the Honourable First Court from going into the dispute regarding the responsibilities of the parties for the purposes of the head of costs, and was also precluded from applying Article 48 of Cap. 16 of the Laws of Malta.
...........omissis...........
In the first place, the respondent respectfully submits that the grievances are to result from the appeal application in which there should be indicated in detail the reasons why the appeal is being made ...omissis... It is not the duty of this Court of Revision to find or create that from which the appellant is complaining.
In the second place, as regards that submitted by the appellant by means of this first grievance subarticle (1) of Article 20 of Cap. 255 is very relevant whereby it is stated ’If a marriage is declared null, the effectsof a valid marriage are to be considered to have existed in favour of the spouses till the judgement of nullity has become res judicata when the spouses had married in bona fede’. From the reading of this Article, it results that the legislator was very careful not to mention ‘ rights’ but ‘effects’...omissis... the word ‘effects of marriage’ includes both the rights and essential obligations of marriage. Each party is bound by various obligations resulting from marriage, such as for examplethe duty of fidelty of one party towards the other.
That as far as legal matters are concerned it is observedthat the concept of putative marriage was introduced in our juridical system by Act number XXXIV ofthe year 1981, which substituted Article 20 as was inforce at that time and as an exceptionto the principle ‘quod nullum est nullum producit effectum’, and is primarily intendedto secure the rights of children that are born in marriage which is subsequently declared null, but not only the legislator wanted also to secure the civil efects of the spouses which are, or of the spouse which is in good fath.
...........omissis...........
This submitted the Honourable First Court was correct when it considered the torts and responsibilties of the parties for the purpose of the Head of costs ...omissis.. and when it applied Article 48 of Cap. 16 of the Laws of Malta in regard to the appellant because this Article has as its legal basis the attribution of guilt for the separation.
That besides this, it results if one examines closely the judgement of the Ecclesistical Tribunal, one should arrive at the conclusion that the behaviour of the appellant during marriage was such that it was clear that he was in bad faith and not the plaintiff his wife. The Court of First Instance had to limit itself to see whether there was a judicial declaration that any party was in bad faith when it contracted marriage. In the absence of the said declaration as regards the respondent, the principle is that enunciated by sub article (1) of Article 20, and namely that a putative marriage brings with it the effects of a valid marriage for the contracting parties and their children.
The Second Grievance - Responsibility forthe separation.
That from an accurate reading of that submitted by the appellant by means of the second grievance (which contradicts) the version brought forward by means of the first grievance, it clearly results that this is a grievance regarding the bad evaluation of the proof which according to the appellant was made by the Court of First Instance.
As regards this matter, the regulatory principle is that this Honourable Court as a Court of Revision should not disturb the appreciation of proof made by the Court of First Instance without a grave and impellent reason. The same appellant in his appeal application does not give any plausible reason why the evaluation of proof made by the Court of First Instance should be disturbed.
That without prejudice to the above the applicant respectfully submits that the Court of First Instance was correct when regarding the responsibility for the separation it considered so:
...........omissis...........
That as regards the guilt for separation, the appellant is submitting that the plaintiff’s proof regarding the alleged violence consisted:
(a) In sentito dire and detto del detto;
(b) Her word as results from her affidavit;
(c) The evidence of various families who helped her but in their majority was detto del detto or lacked credibility.
That the appellant is very mistaken in so far as it is stated that the Court decided the faults and responsibilities on proof which consists in sentito dire and detto del detto. Whilst the respondent refers to the judgement decided by the Ecclesiastical Tribunal, whereby it was also confirmed that the marriage between the parties is null due to the inability to carry out the duties of matrimonial life.
That the facts which gave rise to the separationwere documented in the records, and there should be no doubt that the respondent suffered beatings, cruelty, excesses, threats and grievous insults during her married life.
...........omissis...........
Despite that the appellantsubmits that the Court of First Instance relied on proof consisting in detto del detto and in sentito di dire, it did not make any reference to various decrees given by the Court of First Instance during the procedures which confirmed that the appellant should leave the matrimonial home as well as the Ecclesiastical Tribunals which imposed on the defendant a vetitum on the defendantdue to inability to carry out the duties of matrimonial life.
That despite of clear and repeated orders of the Courts during the proceedings, the appellant continued with his arrogant behaviourand witheld the respondent from entering the house.
...........omissis...........
The truth is that the respondent had to literally run away due to beatings and violence on the part of the appellant against her and against her children. The appellant continued to control everything in the house, the business, the stock and all the assets with huge amounts of money forked out by her parents.
...........omissis...........
That the appellant submitsthat once the evidence of the parties was made by affidavit and the cross-examinationswere not made before the Court, the Court of First Instance had no advantage to establish who of the parties was saying the truth and according to him could not decide who was decieving.
...........omissis...........
That with the greatest respect, this is playing with words as the appellant knew well that this was an exercise which was not difficult at all for the Court of First Instanceas he himself admitted in his appeal application that he offended the applicant with derogatory words.
..........omissis...........
Keeping in viewthis submitted, the Court of First Instance could appreciate how the appellant made the applicant’s life miserable. This behaviourduring the matrimonial life of the parties and other proof brought forward by the two parties was considered both by the Legal Referee, Ecclesiastical Tribunal by the Criminal Courts and finally even the decision of the Court of First Instance.
The Third Grievance - Maintenance
That the third grievance of the appellant relates to the arrears of maintenance. The appellant submits that effectively the amount liquidated by the Court of First Instance of €600 does not represent arrears of maintenanceas these lapsed two days after in the minutes of the 18th January, 2013, the plaintiff confirmed under oath before the Court that arrears of maintenance for the boy were still due. Thus it is evident even in the present application that the appellant failed to say the truth.
The Fourth Grievance
That as far as regards the fourth grievance brought forward by the appellant this is also unfounded and should be rejected by this Honourable Court and for the following reasons:
Regarding the loan of €13,976.24 the appellant submits that:
(a) He was paid during marriage from the money that the plaintiff took from their business.
Here it results that the first point regarding this grievance of the appellant is also regarding the bad evaluation of the proof which according to the appellant was made by the Honourable First Court.
...........omissis...........
The Court of First Instance reserved that the liquidation and assignment of this part of the assets of the community of acquests be made in separate proceedings following an ad hoc request of one of the parties, and thus every claim of the appellant should be raised in the same separate proceedings.
(b) No interest is due since it was not a commercial debt since there was never was an agreement for the payment of interest, and since no calling for payment was made.
In the first place, it is stated that it is also not correctwhen the appellant alleged that this was not a commercial debt.As results from the writing dated 1st February, of the year 1998, in question (1) the appellant Joseph Schembri was in business, and (2) the loan was utilised in the construction of the premises in Ħal Tarxien, in Triq tal-Barrani, were apart from the building of a matrimonial home, there was also built a showroom and underlying garages. Thus in this regard there applies Article 1141 (1) of Cap. 16 of the Laws of Malta; ‘1141(1) If the obligation is of a commercial nature, or if the law provides that the interests are to start running ipso jure, theinterests are to pass from that day that the obligation should have been executed.
In the second place with all due respect,no party in the cause can attribute to the law a meaning which does not make sense. The appellant contends that no interest is duebecause no calling for payment was made ...omissis... In order to avoid amibuity,it is useful to state that the words ‘callings for payments’ as cited in Article 1141 (2) of the Civil Code refers to the payment of capital and not interest thereon, and that consequently when like in the present case a judicial call for the payment of capital has been made there runs ope legis interest on the same capital.
(c) Apart that even if the interst was due, this would have belonged to the community of acquests, and thus if ever the plaintiffcould expect only one half of such interest.
That not even here is the appellant right.
(d)In any case, this heading is extra petita.
That this is a frivoulous argument and the respondent is not of the opinion that she should not submit on this point as the Court of First Instance was correct in the manner it applied the provisions of the law.
The FifthGrievance and the Sixth Grievance.
That these two grievances relate to the bad evalutation of the proof which according to the appellant were made by the Honourable First Court ...omissis... That it appears that the appellantis trying to deviate this Honourable Court with unthruthful facts when in the appeal application he submits that the rents were received after the annulment in connection with his paraphernal property.
...........omissis...........
That nor does that alleged by the appellant resultthat the Court of First Instanceproceeded in a discrimantory manner in his regard when it came to liquidate the paraphernal propertyand the community of acquests of the parties, and in any case this relates to the appreciation of facts which were brought foward before the Court of First Instance in this cause of separation which was instituted more than ten years ago.
............omissis...........
That despiteof this premised, the respondent submits that she agrees with that premised in paragraph number 24 of the appeal application in so far as the appellant points out that in so far as whatis in his favour or not, this Honourable Court should give a defintive judgement in terms of the demands which were brought foward.
The Seventh Grievance
That in virtue of the seventh grievance,the appellant is contendingthat once heis not guilty for the separationhe should not have been condemned to pay the expenses of the cause. In order to avoid useless repetion, the respondent refers to that she submitted regarding the first and second grievance as well as the conclusions of the Ecclesistical Tribunal, were it amply results that the appellant is completely responsible for the breakdown of the marriage.
...........omissis...........
Thus, even this heading should be rejected by this Honourable Application of Appeal.
That thus and for the reasons premised in this application, the judgement appealed given by the Court of First Instance on the 29th November, 2013, merits confirmation (saving that which shall be stated in this incidental appeal), and the appeal should be rejected with costs of both instances against the appellant.
That the respondent is availing herself of the right granted to her by Article 240 of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta, and is presenting an incidental appeal from the decision of the Civil Court (Family Section) of the 29th November, 2013, in the names premised and for the reasons mentioned later on in this reply.
By means of an Application filed in the records of the Application number 769/03, in the names Rita Schembri in her own name and as curator ad litem of her minor children Janelle and Charlton, siblings Schembri vs Joseph Schembri, Rita Schembri (today Azzopardi) (ID 339384M) above mentioned respectfully pleaded:
That the respondent applicant is availing herself of this appeal and instituting this incidental appeal in terms of Article 240 of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta.
That by means of a decision given on the 29th November, 2013, this Honourable Civil Court (Family Section) decided by upholding the first demand of the plaintiff in the sense that the defendant was exclusively found guilty for the separation between the parties, and this from the 30th September, 2002, it abstainedto take cognisance of the second demand of the plaintiff ...omissis... rejected the third demand of the plaintiff ...omissis... upheld the fourth demand of the plaintiff ...omissis... and applied against the defendant the sanctions of the provisions of Article 48 of Cap. 16 of the Laws of Malta, upheld the fifth demand of the plaintiff, dissolved the community of acquests ...omissis... upheld the sixth demand limitedly ...omissis... and rejected the seventh demand of the plaintiff with costs to be borne by the defendant.
That the respondent applicant felt aggrieved by this judgement, and by the present is filing this incidental appeal.
That the grievance is clear and manifest, and consists of the following:
That the Court of First Instance was incorrect when it assigned the garage which is situated in Triq Raheb, Tarxien, to the two parties which garage had to be assigned in its entirety to the plaintiff,and this for the reasons mentioned in this incidental appeal.
...........omissis...........
That the applicant refers to that concluded by the Legal Referee appointed by the Honourable Court of First Instance.
Regarding the large garage which was valued €139,762.40by the technical referee, and keeping in view that her husband is guiltyfor the separation it considers that it is just and equitable that the plaintiffbe assigned this garage in its entirety.
...........omissis...........
That with all the respect due, when the Honourable Court of First Instance decided that it does not share the conclusion of the Legal Referee, it apparently forgot that the appellant is guilty for the personal separation between the parties, and thus as correctly concluded by the Legal Referee, it should have applied against the appellant Article 48 of Cap. 16 of the Laws of Malta.
The Second Grievance-Trading Licence
That the Court of First Instance in its conclusions did not take into consideration the license issued on the 28th August, 1996 (and namely during marriage) regarding auto spares showroom (and which bears number 62/133), and which is on the name of the defendant and which according to the Legal Referee everybody knows that it costs money.
That due to this default the liquidation of the community of acquests was not made in an equitable and just manner.
The Third Grievance - The Matrimonial Home, Showroom Rijas and other garages in Triq ir-Raħeb, Tarxien.
That the Court of First Instance failed to take into considerationand liquidate the share due to the respondent plaintifffrom the immovables which were built during marriageon land which the Honourable First Court, decided that it is paraphernal and of the defendant. That as regards this immovable propertythe Honourable Court of First Instance concluded that the claimsof the plaintiffthat she was a party in the contract of acquistion by means of prestanome was not satisfactorily proved, and thus declared that the land on which these properties was built is paraphernal of the defendant.
...........omissis...........
That thus the Court of First Instance failed when it did not assign and it did not liquidate the share of the plaintiff from the ameliorations madeon the airspaceproperty of the defendant appellant and the increase in value of the complex built on the same airspace as a result of these ameliorations. That here one is speaking about substantial ameliorations, since the appellanthad only as his paraphernal property the airspace which was subsequently developed ...omissis... which was transformed into a habitable complex and fully equiped a matrimonial home, showrooms and garages.
Thus for the reasons premised, the applicant whilst referring to the proof produced and reserves to bring other proof permitted by law respectfully prays this Honourable Court:
To deny the demands of the defendant appellant as contained in his appeal application and confirm the judgement given by the Honourable First Court, dated 29th November, 2013.
Reform the judgement given by the Honourable First Court, dated 29th November, 2013, after it considers the submissions made in this incidental appeal with costs of both instances and the incidental appeal against the defendant appellant.
Notify Appellant: ‘Casa Padova’, Triq tal-Barrani, Tarxien, or ‘Schemson Flats’, Triq Tal-Barrani, Tarxien.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1596
1596By a decree given by the Civil Court First Hall, on the 25th August, 2014, on the application of F.C. Books & Co. Ltd,Thursday, 13th November, 2014 at eleven in the morning, for the Sale by Auction to be held at the Law Courts, First Floor, Republic Street, Valletta, of the following property:
The tenement fifty eight (58) D, in Republic Street, known as A.C. Aquilina & Co., free and unencumbered, valued at six hundred and sixty-five thousand Euro (€665,000).
The said tenement is the property of Laura Spiteri et.
N.B. The said tenement will be sold as described in judicial sales 27/2014.
Rudolph Marmarà
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1597
1597By means of an application filed in the Civil Court of Voluntary Jurisdiction Section, on the 25th September, 2014, Application number 869/2014 by Mary Agius, whereby they prayed that it be declared open in her favour and in favour of her sister Mary Lourdes Buttigieg, and this in the quota of one third (1/3) undivided share each one of them, and the remaining one third (1/3) undivided share in favour of Christopher and Maria Alessandra, brother and sister Mifsud, in equal shares between them, the Succession ofher sister Joan, known as Jane Mifsud, unmarried, daughter of the late Amabile Mifsud and Francesca née Azzopardi, born in Valletta, was under care at Mount Carmel Hospital, Ħ’Attard, where she died on the 30th June, 2014, aged 72, intestate, holding identity card number 624241(M).
Wherefore any person who considers 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 Court and Tribunals
Notice 1598
1598By means of an application filed in the Civil Court of Voluntary Jurisdiction Section, on the 29th September, 2014, Application number 881/2014 by Marthese Zarb, whereby she prayed that it be declared open in favour of the same Marthese Zarb, and this in the quota of one half (1/2) undivided share, and regarding the other half (1/2) undivided share in favour of Rodlene, Bernice, Malcolm, Millison and Eleonor, all brothers and sisters Zarb, children of the decujus, and this in equal shares between them, the Succession ofMartin Zarb, son of the late Francis and Dolores née Mallia, born in Pietà, resided in Birkirkara, and died in Tal-Qroqq, Msida, on the 9th January, 2014 aged 50, intestate, holding identity card number 347963(M).
Wherefore any person who considers 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 Court and Tribunals
Notice 1599
1599By means of an application filed in the Civil Court of Voluntary Jurisdiction Section, on the 30th September, 2014, Application number 888/2014 by Meleonora Camilleri and Dolores, sive Doris Gatt, the later in her own capacity and for and on behalf of Jeffrey Gatt, whereby they prayed that it be declared open in their favour in equal shares between them, the Succession oftheir brother Aldo Gatt, Bachelor, son of the late Filippo Gatt and Dolores Gatt née Galdies, born in Floriana, resided in Sliema, and died in Pietà, on the 22nd January, 2014 aged 84, intestate, holding identity card number 629929(M).
Wherefore any person who considers 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 Court and Tribunals
Notice 1600
1600By means of an application filed in the Civil Court of Voluntary Jurisdiction Section, on the 30th September, 2014, Application number 884/2014 by Karla Casey, whereby she prayed that it 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 ofJack Michael Casey, son of the decujus, the Succession of her husband Darren John Casey, son of Steve John Casey and Gaynor née Burton, born in England, resided in Qawra, limits of Saint Paul’s Bay, and died in Tal-Qroqq, on the 5th March, 2014 aged 33, intestate, holding identity card number 39800(A).
Wherefore any person who considers 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 Court and Tribunals
Bann for Curators
1601Republic of Malta
To The Marshall of the Court
By means of a decree by this Court, on the 22nd September, 2014, following a request of HSBC Bank Malta plc,it was ordered that Deputy Curators be chosen to represent the absent Michael Perry et, in the records of the judicial letter number 2919/14, in the names HSBC Bank Malta plc vs Deputy Curators, and in the relative and subsequent acts.
By means of a judicial letter presented in the First Hall Civil Court, on the 19th September, 2014, to Deputy Curators appointed to represent the absent Michael Perry (British Passport number 105700166) and Lyn Perry (British Passport number 104179738), HSBC Bank Malta plc (C 3177), of 32, Merchants Street, Valletta, refers you to the contract of constitution of debt by the interpellant in the records of Notary Dr Nicholas Briffa, dated 23rd June, 2011, and call upon you so that within seven days from today you pay the sum of (€25,705.70), which represents capital and interest on capital, till the 12th September, 2014, besides legal interest at the rate of 8% on capital from the 13th September, 2014, till the date of effective payment.
By means of the above mentioned judicial letter, HSBC Bank Malta plc (C 3177), of 32, Merchants Street, Valletta, refer you to the contract of constitution of debt by the interpellantin the records of Notary Dr Nicholas Briffa, dated 23rd June, 2011, and call upon you so that within seven days you pay the sum of (€10,812.27), representing capital and interest till the 12th September, 2014, besides legal interest at 8% from the 13th September, 2014, till the date of effective payment.
In default of payment, the interpellant Bank warns you that further Court action will be taken against you in execution of their executive title without another prior notice.
So much so that you may know how to regulate yourselves.
With costs.
You are therefore ordered to affix an official copy of this bann at the entrance of this Superior Court, and to summon whosoever wishes to act as curator to appear before this Registry within six days, and by means of a minute to submit a declaration that he wishes so to act.
You are also ordered to inform each one that if he fails to make this declaration within the stipulated time, the Court will proceed to the selection of Curators of Office.
And after so acting, or if you should encounter any difficulty in the execution of this bann, you are to inform forthwith this Court.
Given by the Civil Court First Hall above mentioned with the witness of the Hon. Mr Justice Silvio Meli LLD, Doctor of Laws.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1602
1602By a decree given on the 3rd September, 2014, by the Civil Court First Hall, the Court 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).
By the application filed in the Civil Court First Hall on the 24th April, 2014, by Banif Bank (Malta) plc (C 41030), application number 24/14 in the names Banif Bank (Malta) plc vs Peter Paul Muscat et, being asked that the Court orders the Sale by Auction of the:
The portion of land in an unnamed road which abuts onto Triq San Blas in Nadur, Gozo, having a superficial area of approximately five hundred and sixty metres squared (560 metres squared), bounded on the East by the said Triq San Blas, on the West by the said unnamed road, and on the North by property of Mario and Edwin Muscat or their successors in title, free and unencumbered, with all its rights and appurtenances.
The portion of land forming part of the lands named “Ta’ Wied Binġemma”, in the limits of Nadur, Gozo, having a superficial area of approximately ten thousand and two hundred metres squared (10,200 metres squared), bounded on the North East by a road, on the South and on the North by property of Mario and Edwin Muscat or their successors in title, or more accurate boundaries, free and unencumbered, with all its rights and appurtenances.
The portion of land forming part of the lands named “Ta’ Wied Binġemma”, in the limits of Nadur, Gozo, having a superficial area of approximately seven thousand eight hundred and twenty-six metres squared (7,826 metres squared), bounded on the East by property of Mario and Edwin Muscat or their successors in title, or more accurate boundaries, free and unencumbered, with all its rights and appurtenances.
The said properties belong to Peter Paul Muscat (ID 60545G) and Valerie Muscat (ID 377907L).
Marvic Farrugia
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals