Mur Lura
Court Notices published in Govt. Gazette No. 19,342 of 11 November 2014
01/01/2014
Notice 1749
1749By means of a decree given on the 3rd October, 2014, by the Civil Court First Hall, in the records of the Sworn Application, in the names 2R’S Limited vs Issa Isslam Tawfik, application number 725/14 AE, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the defendant in terms of Article 187 (3) et. seq. of Cap. 12.
By means of a Sworn Application filed in the First Hall Civil Court, in the names 2R’s Limited(C 61760) vs Issa Isslam Tawfik (ID 020380A), on the 18th August, 2014, the applicant 2R’s Limited (C 61760) asked this Honourable Court:
To declare that in the course of execution of the contract of works mentioned in the application the defendant carried out bad work not according to the art or trade, and furthermore he failed to execute the works within the terms agreed in the same contract, and uphold the other demands in the application amongst which the liquidation of damages, liquidate the penalties and order the cancelling of the enrolment of the privilege with number 1400/2014, dated 15th July, 2014.
With costs and interests.
Applicant: 2R’s Limited, Aries House, Mdina Road, Żebbuġ, Malta.
Defendant: Issa Isslam Tawfik, Flat 3, Buontempo Flats, Balzan Valley, Balzan.
The Sworn Application in the names 2R’S Limited vs Issa Isslam Tawfik, application number 725/2014 AE, has been deferred for hearing to the 14th November, 2014, at 8.45 a.m.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1750
1750By means of an application filed in the Civil Court of Voluntary Jurisdiction Section, on the 22nd October, 2014, Application number 962/2014 by Joseph Frendo and others,whereby they prayed that it be declared open infavour of the same Joseph Frendo, husband of the decujus, and this in the quota of one half (1/2) undivided share; and in favour of Jacqueline Jacono and Keven Frendo, children of the decujus, and this in the quota of one fourth (1/4) undivided share each one of them, the Succession of Maria Dolores, sive Doris Frendo, wife of Joseph Frendo, daughter of the late Emmanuele Micallef and Maria née Micallef, born and resided in Mosta, and died in Tal-Qroqq, Imsida, on the 9th July, 2014, aged 68, intestate, holding identity card number 674845(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
By means of an application filed in the Civil Court of Voluntary Jurisdiction Section, on the 19th September, 2014, Application number 846/2014 by Paul Mifsud, whereby he prayed that it be declared open in his favour, and this in the quota of one half (1/2) undivided share; and in favour of Rosanne Mizzi and Dennis, brother and sister Mifsud, children of the decujus, and this in the quota of one fourth (1/4) undivided share each one of them, the Succession ofhis wife Maria Rosaria Mifsud, daughter of the late John Sciberras and Maddalena Sciberras née Fiteni,born and resided in Valletta, and died at Tal-Qroqq, Imsida, on the 10th April, 2014, aged 77, holding identity card number 523836(M), intestate.
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 1752
1752By means of an application filed in the Civil Court of Voluntary Jurisdiction Section, on the 19th September, 2014, Application number 847/2014 by Joseph Seychell, whereby he prayed that it be declared open in his favour, and of his sisters Teresa Schembri, Yvonne, sive Mary Yvonne Mifsud and Martha Schembri, and this in equal shares between them, the Succession of his brother Saviour, sive Salvu Seychell, Bachelor, son of the late Anthony and Mary née Caruana, born and resided in Lija, and died in Tal-Qroqq, limits of Imsida, on the 26th July, 2014, aged 67, holding identity card number 610647(M) intestate.
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 1753
1753By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal, ofthe 13th May, 2014, 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), ofFra Diego Street, Marsa MRS 1501, filed a Claim, on the 29th January, 2014, whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Rachel White Barclay (ID 34703A), ofGloria Maris Court, Flat 2, Triq l-Iskola, Marsaskala,to pay the plaintiff company the sum of€356.99, which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With costs and legal interests.
The case (Claim Number 61/14KPS) is deferred for the 14th November, 2014 at 12.30 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1754
1754By means of a decree given on the 27th October, 2014, by the Civil Court (Family Section), in the records of the Application in the names Zarb Charles vs Zarb Mary, application number 399/14 AL, 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 an Application presented in the Civil Court (Family Section), in the names Charles Zarb (ID 649156M) vs Mary Zarb (ID 681157M), on the 19th September, 2014, the applicant Charles Zarb (ID 649156M) asked this Honourable Court:
To pronounce the dissolution of the marriage which was celebrated between the parties on the twenty-third December, of the year one thousand nine hundred seventy-eight, and uphold the other demands in the application.
Respondent: Binja Indipendenza, Block C, Flat 4, Taż-Żwejt, San Ġwann.
The Application in the names Zarb Charles vs Zarb Mary, application number 300/14 AL, has been deferred to Wednesday, 19th November, 2014, at 9.15 a.m.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1755
1755By means of a decree given on the 8th October, 2014, by the Rent Regulation Board, in the records of the Application, in the names Patrizio Prospero vs Luke John Dimech, application number 36/14 GG, 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 Sworn Application filed in the Rent Regulation Board, in the names Patrizio Prospero (ID 179202L) vs Luke-John Dimech (ID 267279M), on the 10th April, 2014, application in terms of Article 16A (1(b) and (1c), the applicant Patrizio Prospero (ID 179202L) asked this Honourable Board:
To decide the cause without proceeding to a hearing in terms of Article 16A of Cap. 69 of the Laws of Malta, declare that by his failure to pay the respondent he committed a material default and breach in terms of the lease agreement of the 28th August, 2012, and consequently the lease is terminated ipso jure, and uphold the other demands in the application.
With costs as demanded and interests according to law against the respondent summoned so that a reference to his evidence be made.
Applicant: 5, Santa Maria Court, Triq iż-Żraġen, Ħ’Attard.
Respondent: c/o Besedo Malta, Level 3, The Emporium, Triq C. De Brockdorff, Msida MSD 1421.
The Sworn Application, in the names Prospero Patrizio vs Dimech Luke-John, application number 36/14 GG, has been deferred for hearing to the 8th January, 2015, at 9.00 a.m.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1756
1756IT IS BEING NOTIFIED that by a decree dated 29th May, 2014, given by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Inquiry(Magistrate Dr Miriam Hayman LLD), following an application by Rosario Caruso dated 8th October, 2014, in the case with Compilation number 480/2014:
The Police
(Inspector Nikolai Sant)
Versus:
ROSARIO CARUSO, 41 years, Poker Player, son of Salvatore and Giovanna, born in Catania, Italy, on the 16th April, 1973, and residing at ‘Nuvolo Biancha’, Josef Calleja Street, Swieqi, and holder of Italian Passport bearing number AA1055886.
AUTHORISED the accused Rosario Caruso to cash the cheque bearing number 52328 for the amount of €5,000. This cheque was issued by the Government of Malta, in the name of Rosario Caruso, and is to be cashed at the Bank of Valletta. This sum shall form part of his annual entitlement permitted by law which is thirteen thousand, nine hundred and seventy-six Euro and twenty-six cents (€13,976.24).
This variation was made following a freezing order dated 29th May, 2014, which was duly published in the Government Gazette on 30th May, 2014, in terms of Article 22A of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 101 of the Laws of Malta, and of Article 23A of the Criminal Code, Cap. 9 of the Laws of Malta.
Dr John Seychell Navarro
Dip. Hlth Science, Dip. Mgmt Stud, Dip. Not. Pub. LLB, LLD
Assistant Registrar Criminal Courts and Criminal Tribunals
Notice 1757
1757Whereas Dr Marsette Xerrifor and on behalf of Sumaya Gharep sive Sumea Belhag Ahmed Abdalhade Gharep, filed a writ of summons number 29/2014 (PC) in the names: Dr Marsette Xerri noe -vs- Direttur tar-Reġistru Pubbliku għal Għawdex, demanding Correction in the Act of Birth bearing number one hundred and forty eight, of the year one thousand nine hundred and seventy-nine (148/1979).
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 (15) 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 writ of summons of the day which will be appointed for the hearing of the case.
Silvio Xerri
For the Registrar Gozo Courts and Tribunals
Whereas Pierre Eugine Buttigieg filed a writ of summons number 37/2014 (PC) in the names: Pierre Eugine Buttigieg -vs- Direttur tar-Reġistru Pubbliku għal Għawdex, demanding Correction in his Act of Birth bearing number two hundred and eighteen, of the year one thousand nine hundred and fifty-four (218/1954).
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 (15) 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 writ of summons of the day which will be appointed for the hearing of the case.
Silvio Xerri
For the Registrar Gozo Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1759
1759By means of a decree given on the 2nd October, 2014, by the Court of Appeal, in the records of the Appeal Application, in the names Carmel Zammit vs Giovanna, sive Joan Zammit, Application number 321/12, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent Carmel Zammit in terms of Article 187 (3) et. seq. of Cap. 12.
By means of an Appeal Application presented in the Court of Appeal, in the names Carmel Zammit vs Giovanna, sive Joan Zammit, Decided 10/12/2013, the applicant Giovanna, sive Joan Zammit (ID 209462M) respectfully pleaded:
The Facts
1. The parties were married on the fifteenth September, 1985, and subsequently by means of a contract in the records of Notary Dr Sandra Valentino, dated 15th May, 2003, the parties legally separated from each other.
2. That as a result of the marriage, the spouses Zammit had two children, which today are both of age.
3. That the girl works but the boy Keith does not work since he is a university student, and thus maintenance is due to him according to Article 3B of Cap. 16 (Civil Code) of the Laws of Malta.
4. That the boy Keith who is of age but less than twenty-three years old, is following a course at the University of Malta, and as he is not receiving maintenance from his father Carmel Zammit,the cause in the names Zammit Giovanna sive Joan vs Zammit Carmel, Sworn Application number 86/12 AL was instituted.
5. That when the mediation preceeding that cause was closed, the boy Keith was still a minor, and till the cause premised was instituted he had reached eighteen years of age.
The Appealed Application
6. That during the proceedings of the cause premisedfor the demand of maintenance, the husband Carmel Zammit presented an application on the 29th May, 2012, for the dissolution of marriage from his wife.
7. ...........omissis...........
8. That in her reply, the respondent qua appellant Giovanna Zammit pleaded inter alia that on the contrary to that mentioned in the fifth paragraph of the original application of the plaintiff Carmel Zammit did not pay all the maintenance due by him.
9. That the maintenancetill this day has not been paid, and in the cause in the names premised, the defendant Carmel Zammit is opposingto pay the maintenance to his son, and is insisting that his duty to pay maintenance is till the boy is eighteen years old.
10. That the Court should not pass on to decide in favour of the plaintiff’s demandtill the requisites of Article 66B et. seq. of Cap. 16 (Civil Code) of the Laws of Malta are not satisfied in all their entirety.
11. That the Civil Court (Family Section) in the cause in the names Micallef Raymond vs Micallef Rita, Sworn Application number 385/11 NC, Decided on the 31st May, 2012, had decided that Article 66B which regulates the provision for maintenance refers only to Article 57 of Cap. 16, which provision provides only for the maintenance of minor children.
12. That the Honourable First Court agreed with this decision, and thus relied in toto on the line of thought of this judgement.
13. That the respondent Giovanna Zammit feels strongly aggrieved by this decision, and is thus filing this humble appeal.
Grievances
1. That the first Grievance of the appellants consists in the fact that the Honourable First Court made a wrong interpretation of the law.
(A) Article 57 (1) of Cap. 16 is intended to provide for the maintenance of the minor children after the separation of the couple.
...........omissis...........
Article 57 of Cap. 16 regulates the maintenance in such a way and manner to ensure that after the couple separate, both parents indistinctly and irrespectively from who was entrusted with the care and custody of the children.
Saving what shall be said later on in this application,however not only the minor children have the right to maintenance. Even children of age which in particular circumstances have the right extended to them which equally has to be be safeguarded. Here Article 3B of Cap. 16 provides that children under twenty-three years of agewhich are educating themselves on a full-time basis, and who are affected by a disability have the right to be maintained by their parents indistinctly and in the same manner that minor children are maintained.
(b) Article 66B for the maintenance of all the children.
Without prejudice and subordinately to the above in its evaluation, both the Honourable First Court as well as the preceeding Court cited in re Micallef ignored the significantdifference between the two articles of law.Article 57 of Cap. 16 is intended to regulate not strictly the maintenance but to ensure its safeguarding independently who has the care and custody and access to the children.
On the other part, Article 66B of Cap. 16 is intended to ensure that the duties of the parent towards all the children be safeguared without distinction. The law does not speak on minor children or children of age or those affectedby a disability, the law states ‘the spouses and every offspring of theirs’.
...........omissis...........
The decision appealed as well in re Micallef does so. It creates a class of childrenwho because they are minors, themaintenance due to them is safeguarded by the rejection of the demand for the dissolution of marriage, but if they are of age ...omissis... the dissolution is otherwise granted, with their right to institute a cause against the parent to make a request so the maintenance be ensured.
(c) The exclusion of Article 3B under Article 66B.
Without prejudice and subordinately to the above, the judgement appealed makes a tacit observation and substitutes itself for the legislator. This is the case because whilst the law in Article 66B refers to Article 57 of Cap. 16 it does not make any positive exclusion of Article 3B of the Code.
...........omissis...........
2. That without prejudice and subordinatelyto the above, the second grievance of the appellant consists in the fact that the Honourable First Court made a wrong application of the law, and this for the following reasons:
(a) Article 3B is an integral part of the law of Divorce.
The amendment to the law which saw the introduction of the protection of the right of maintenance of the children extended in the law from the age of eighteen (18) till twenty-three (23) in case that these are following studies on a part time basis was introduced by means of an Act which amends the Civil Code of 2007, which is the same instrument by which the Articles of Law on Divorce were introduced.
...........omissis...........
This means in the most unequivocable mannerthat Article 3B forms part of this set of Articles of Law like Article 66B and 66D which introduced the institute of divorce, and thus this guarantee for maintenance cannot be divorced from the rest of the laws.
(b) Distinction betwen Article 66b and 66d of Cap. 16.
Article 66B of Cap. 16 imposes the conditions for the attainment of a divorce decree, and states that in order that a request for divorce be upheld ‘inter alia’, the spousesand every offspring are receiving adequate maintenance where it is due according to their particular circumstances as provided in Article 57.
On the other part however, Article 66D states thus and regards the opposition to a divorce decree.
‘the other party can contest this request ...omissis... by ...omissis... by proving that the married person who requested the divorce has not paid the maintenance due’.
...........omissis...........
Thus, Article 66Dhas also the same weightlike Article 66B, and in default therefore the maintenance is provided to the children who are of age in terms of Article 3B of the Code the demand should not and cannot be upheld.
...........omissis...........
(c)A divorce decree should not be given if the maintenance due is not paid as sanctioned by Article 66D of Cap. 16.
Without prejudice and subordinately to the above,the separation of the spouses Zammit is regulated both by a contractof personal separation, and consequently were this remains silent according to the provisions of Cap. 16.
The contract of personal separation of the parties in so far as it concerns the maintenance of the children states the following:
...........omissis...........
In the case in question, the boy Keith whom is today eighteen is not working part-time nor full-time, and this because he is studying full-time at the University of Malta.
Thus, his right that the child who is of age qualified as regulated under the provisions of Article 3B of Cap. 16 receives maintenance is not only one ex lege,but is a right which has not been contractually excluded.
And this cannot be otherwise. The maintenance both that specifically provided in the contract of separation,as well as that provided ex lege are a matter of public order, and thus a Court declaration is not required for the recognition of this right.
...........omissis...........
Article 66D (2) of Cap. 16 gives the opportunityfor a formal contestation of the request for divorce. The law amongst others states that a person can oppose the request if it has not been paid the maintenance due as ordered by the Court, or agreed in the contract of separation.
It is obvious therefore that the maintenance has to be paid as due, or ordered by the Court, or as granted by means of a contract, and it is certain that this is maintenance which is due according to law.
...........omissis...........
(d) Pending demand in an ancillary cause which affects the merit of the application.
Without prejudice and subordinately to the above it is uncontested that the Honourable First Court was notified by means of a reply of the appellants Zammit, and also because the procedures for the condemnation of the payment of maintenance for the boy Keith Zammit are being held before the same Honourable Court as presided that there is a pending dispute which directly affects the requisites under Article 66 d (2) of Cap. 16.
...........omissis...........
There is no doubt therefore that once the Court has not pronounced itself as regards the request in the cause in Re Zammit (86/2012) AL,the dispute is still pending, and that Court should have in the first place awaited for the exist of this cause before it passed on to decide the application for divorce.
...........omissis...........
(e) The obligation of maintenance under the regime for Personal Separation and Divorce cannot be different.
The Court of First Instance by means of the decision appealed made a wrong evaluation of the law also when it acknowledged that the manner how disputes under the two institutes of separation and divorce are treated equally.
...........omissis...........
3. The Third Grievance of the appellant Giovanna Zammit consists in the fact that the Honourable Court of First Instance made a wrong appreciation of the facts which consists in the following:
(a) The child who is of age has to conform with the conditions of Article 3B.
...........omissis..........
(b) The Maltese law is based on that of Ireland.
Particularly Article 2 (1) of the IrishFamily Law (Divorce) Act 1996 defines as dependent member of the family every child under eighteen years of age (both if under 23if receiving full-time education). On the other part, the Irish Constitution refers to any child of each or both spouses.
...........omissis...........
This provision of the Irish Constitutionbrought about the Irish Courts to debate the status of children underthe juridical system as regards maintenance.
‘Since the jurisdiction invoked is that contained in the Constitution and not that amplified by the Act, it is necssary for the Court to consider the position of the children’.
...........omissis...........
Infact, the provisions of Article 5 (1) (C) of the Irish Acton which our law is basedwith the analogous provision being Article 66 (B) (C) of our law stating thus:‘such provision as the Court considers proper having regard to the circumstances exists, or will be made for the spouses and any dependent members of the family’.
Naturally, the Article of Law had to be adapted to the circumstances and the significance of the provisions which regulate both our personal separation, as well as those regulating divorce.
...........omissis...........
However, the way that dependent members of the family under Irish Law were definedis so important,and so much wider is the definition under the Constitutionthat it is very possible that a maintenance order be given by the Court not only for children of age up to twenty-three but even more.
‘The reference to ‘any children’ in Article 41.3.2 of the Constitution is clearly capable of a much wider interpretation that that of‘any dependent members of the family’, as set out in the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996, where the termis defined as any person under the age of 18 years, or if over 18 but below 23 is in full-time education.
...........omissis...........
‘It is therefore possible for a divorcing parent to be ordered to continue maintenance payments in respect of an adult child where he/she no longer wishes to do so’.
Demands
Thus, in view of all the grievances brought forward, the appellants whilst referring to the proof producedduring the proceedings humbly prays this Honourable Court of Appeal:
1. To uphold all the grievances brought forward by the appellant Giovanna, sive Joan Zammit contained in this appeal application, and erase, revoke and cancel the judgement appealed in all its entirety.
Respondent: Carmel Zammit, D & L Flats, Flat 2, Triq Salvu Dimech, Mosta.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1760
1760IT IS BEING NOTIFIED that by a decree dated 30th October, 2014, given by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Inquiry (Magistrate Dr Miriam Hayman LLD), Compilation number 1016/2014 in the case:
The Police
(Inspector Herman Mula)
Versus:
MARTINO AIELLO, 49 years, unemployed, son of Francesco and Grazia née Longhitano, born in Catania, Sicily, on the 10th October, 1965, residing Portopalo di C.P. via F. Garrano 92, and holder of Italian Identity card bearing number AS 4759564.
ORDERED the attachment in the hands of third parties in general all monies and other movable property due, or pertaining, or belonging to Martino Aiello, and prohibits the said accused from transferring, pledging, hypothecating, or otherwise disposing of any movable or immovable property, and this according to Article 22A of the Dangerous Drugs Act, Cap. 101 of the Laws of Malta, and of Article 23A of the Criminal Code, Cap. 9 of the Laws of Malta.
AUTHORISED that the accused Martin Aiello can withdraw the amount which will not exceed thirteen thousand, nine hundred and seventy-six Euro and twenty-four cents (€13,976.24) per year for his living, provided that the Court must be informed from where the amount will be withdrawn and sourcing of the same.
Marvic Psaila
Deputy Registrar Criminal Courts and Criminal Tribunals
Notice 1761
1761NOTICE
CIVIL COURT (FAMILY SECTION)
Whereas the plaintiff Angela Buttigieg (ID 548184M), filed an application under oath (No. 246/14 AL), demanding Correction in the Act of Birth of the minors Aurora Kasen and Gianluca Kasem numbers 943/2010 and 1049/2014respectively 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.
Rita Mangion
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1762
1762It is hereby notified that by means of an application filed in the Civil Court (Voluntary Jurisdiction Section), on the 4th of November, 2014, number 1012/2014 by John Desira and others, wherein they prayed that it be declared open in favour of John Desira in share of one half (1/2);and in favour of Daniel Desira and Graziella Desira, in shares of one fourth (1/4) each, the Succession of Rita Desira (ID 155466M), wife of John Desira, daughter of Paul Mallia and Angela née Zerafa, born in Pietà, resided at Żabbar, and died at Tal-Qroqq, Imsida, on the 18th of March, 2014, aged 47 years.
Thus whoever considers that he has an interest is called so that by means of a note he enters his opposition according to Article537 (1) et. seq. of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta.
Marcel Bugeja
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1763
1763By a decree given on the 9th October, 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 a note presented in the Civil Court First Hall, on the 25th of June, 2014, from Joseph Dalli (ID 230159M) and his wife Antoinette Dalli (ID 70960M) brought to the formal notice of this Honourable Court that the applicant has an interest to intervene and participate in the acts of the judicial sale in the names Brian Cutajar noe vs Salvatore, sive Salvu Cutajar, given that the applicant is a creditor of the respondent for the sum of €103,595 (one hundred and three thousand, five hundred and ninety-five Euro), by way of an official letter 1233/14 presented on 21st April, 2014.
Marvic Farrugia
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1764
1764NOTICE
CIVIL COURT, FIRST HALL
Whereas Maria Stella, sive Marisa XerriDemanuele (ID 536360M), filed an application under oath (No. 946/2014/LSO), demanding Correction in the Act of Birth number 5363/1960 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.
Josette Demicoli
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1765
1765NOTICE
CIVIL COURT, FIRST HALL
Whereas Hamdan Najm (ID 0545013L), filed an application under oath (No. 953/2014/LSO), demanding Correction in the Act of Birth number 5450/2013 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.
Josette Demicoli
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1766
1766By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal, of the 13th October, 2014, 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), ofFra Diego Street, Marsa MRS 1501, filed a Claim, on the 18th August, 2014, whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Peter Valinald Magnell (ID 58370A), of135,Flat 10, Ix-Xatt, Tas-Sliema,to pay the plaintiff company the sum of€1,161.39 which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With costs and legal interests.
The case (Claim Number 571/14NHV) is deferred for the 17th November, 2014 at 12.05 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1767
1767By a decree of the Court of Revision of Notarial Acts, of the 10th November, 2014, the publication of the following extract was ordered for the purpose of effecting service in terms of Article 187 (3) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12).
By means of an application filed by Dr Louis Vella, on the 2nd September, 2014 he respectfully pleaded that:
Notary Dr Astrid Jo Parnis failed to present her acts and all that is required by law by virtue of Article 94A (11) and (12) of Cap. 55 of the Laws of Malta, and asked this Honourable Court so that the said Notary be summoned in terms of Article 120 of Cap. 55 so that she would present the acts to the applicant.
Court of Revision of Notarial Acts
Mr Justice Emeritus Dr Joseph Galea Debono BA, LLD
ApplicationNumber 153/14
The Court
Saw the application of the Revision Official of the 27th October, 2014.
...omissis...
Orders that the said Notary Dr Astrid Jo Parnis shall appear before this Court in the sitting of the 13th November, 2014, at 4.00 p.m. so that she answers for her failure to comply with the law.
Janet Calleja
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals