Go Back
Court Notices published in Govt. Gazette No. 19,258 of 29th May 2014
01/01/2014
Notice 848
848By means of a decree given on the 15th May, 2014 by the Court of Appeal, (Inferior Jurisdiction), in the records ofthe Appeal Applicationin the names Sergio Ciantar vs ST Microelectronics (Malta) Ltd, Appeal number 7/14, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent Sergio Ciantar in terms of Article 187 (3) et. seq. of Cap. 12.
By means of an Appeal Application filed in the Court of Appeal, (Inferior Jurisdiction), Appeal number 7/14, Decision number 2277, Cause number 2699 FM, in the names In the Industrial Dispute between Sergio Ciantar and ST Microelectronics (Malta) Ltd, on the 18th March, 2014 the applicant ST Microelectronics (Malta) Ltd (C 5338), respectfully pleaded:
That by means of an application filed before the Industrial Tribunal, the respondent Sergio Ciantar alleged that he was dismissed from his employment without a valid and sufficient reason according to law, and demanded that he be given back his employment, and that he be reinstated in status quo ante with all the rights.
...........omissis...........
That in the declaration of the cause, the appellant company substantially repeated in greater detail that alleged in its notice of charge dated 2nd February, 2009 that Sergio Ciantar was employed as manager in the purchasing department of the companywas passing internal information of the company to the supplier of the company.
...........omissis...........
That by means of a decision of the Indsutrial Tribunal dated 12th March, 2014 the Industrial Tribunal premised in paragraph number 2 Facts of the Cause that the official of the company entrusted to carry out the disciplinary procedures according to the collective agreementfound the respondent guilty of a breach of discipline and insubordination in connection with his work in the purchasing department ...omissis... The Tribunal in the same decision mentioned reached the conclusion that the termination was made in violation of the provisions of Article 36 (14) of Cap. 452 which stated that the employer cannot terminate the employmentfor the reason of lack of trust of the employee except in the case of an employee in private domestic service. Thus, the Indsutrial Tribunal in the Decisive partof the judgement declared that the dismissal goes againstareason expressly prohibited by law as provided inArticle 36/14 of Cap. 452.
...........omissis...........
That the appellant company felt aggrieved by this decision and is filing a humble appeal before this Honourable Court.
That the facts are the following, the applicant worked in the purchasing department of the applicant company, which is a very important position because he had under hiscontroltransactions of large millions of liri in the purchase of necessary products for production, since the interpellant company is the largest exporter in the country. That since the year 2007, the Head of Department of the purchasing department Ian Maggi who testified in these proceedings noticed that Sergio Ciantar was passing sensitive information relating to the benchmarking of prices at which the company buysto the maltese firm with the name Dynamed. Maggi testified that the only person who could have passed this information was the applicant.
That on the 2nd December, 2008 the Financial Controller of the company noticed that the company was purchasing from the firm Dynamed a chemical product with the name Aquazur for an exhorbitant price, and thus decided to buy directlyfrom the manufactuerer which was an English firm instead of buying from Dynamed with the name of Accepta which supplied Dynamed.
...........omissis...........
That on the 16th January, 2009 the Financial Controller became aware of this Consignment replenishment order which Sergio Ciantar made dated 9th January, 2009 and wrote above ’not authorised’ where it concerned the purchase from Dynamed and sent an e-mail on the same day to Brian Walbank (...omissis...), whereby he demanded an explanation from Brian Walbank whythe companyshall continue to purchase from Dynamed instead of directly from Accepta for a much higher price.
As results also from the same attachment number 9, Brian Walbank answered Santo Potera by means of an e-mail dated 19th January, 2009 at 1.40 p.m.that benchmarking was to be made a new, and Sergio Ciantar had been notified of this e-mail. As soon as he recieved this e-mail in virtue of which he was informed that the benchmarking of the product in questionwas to be made a new just two minutes later, and namely at 1.42 p.m. he started to phone up Dynamed.
...........omissis...........
One does not need to be very intelligent to note from these telephone calls that Sergio Ciantar is playing the double game and that he was not being loyal to the company, but on the contrary he was making a very serious abuse to the detriment of the company.
...........omissis...........
That the grievance is clear and manifest, and consistsin the following:
The Industrial Tribunal based its decision on Article 36 (14) of Cap. 454. This Article states that except in the case of an employee in private domestic service, the employer cannot terminate the employment for the reason that he has lost trust in the employee.
...........omissis...........
From the proof it results that the dismissal was not made simply because the employer lost the trust but because the applicant was disloyal to the applicant company which employed him.
...........omissis...........
That the Tribunal refers also to that which was stated by the Company’s lawyer in the note of observations when he stated that the abusive behaviour of the applicant amounts to a conflict of interest in the carrying out of his duties,and that thus rightfully the company lost trust in the work of the respondent. From these words one logically understandsthatthe reason for dismissal was the abusive behaviour of the respondent and his conflict of interest. The loss of trust was a consequence of the abusive behavior of the applicant.
That the applicant company had every reason to lose trust in the work of the applicantwhen the latter instead of buying at the best price tried to purchase at the best price for the supplier and was completely justified once it had evidence against him to terminate his employment due to his aggressive and deceitful behaviour he was causing huge damages to the company.
The applicant companycannot understand the logicand the sense of the Tribunal’s decisionwhich stated ‘Whatever may have been the reason which brought about the loss of trust of the applicant this cannot be decisive for his dismissal’.
...........omissis...........
The appellant company wishes to refer to that provided by the author Norman Selwyn (15th edition) page 277 in paragraph 10.54 the Author states thus: ’An employee must not make secret profit of his postion for his own benefit without the knowledge or informed consent of the employer and to do so will amount to breach of contract which will justify summary dismissal (Neary vs Dean of Westminister)’. The author continues to state thus: ‘if the employee is in breach of a fiduciary obligation’, ‘he shall be liable in damages and and even criminal action can be taken against the employee’ ( A-G reference No 1 of 1983). Sergio Ciantar was entrustedto purchase at the best prices for the company his abusive and disloyal behaviour certainly constitutes a violation ofthe fiduciary obligation.
That from the charges, proof and decision of the company, it results also that Sergio Ciantar failed to obey the legitimate order of the company when he did not purchase as he had been ordered to do from Accept according to the quotation which the applicant company had in its hand.
...........omissis...........
That the Industrial Tribunal was mistakenwhen it did not examine the proof and did not decide on the proofbrought by the company to prove its abusive behaviour, the indiscipline, the conflict of interest, the collusion with the supplier which brought about the termination of the employment.
...........omissis...........
The Tribunal did not proceed according to lawbecause it should have heard and decided on the proofbrought forward by the applicant company in this cause in order to proof the reason for which the employment was terminatedand namely the disloyalty, conflict of interest ...omissis... and the insubordnation of the applicant. The fact that for these reasons the company lost trust in the applicant’s behaviour did not prohibit it from terminating the employment, however the manner how the Industrial Tribunal reached its conclusion was in the applicant’s opinion incorrect.
The applicant company had valid and sufficient reasons at law to terminate the employment.
...........omissis...........
That without prejudice to the above, and namelythat the company had sufficient and justified reasons at law to terminate the employment of the respondent, if this Honourable Court does agree with this conclusion,the applicant company in this regard submits that the Industrial Tribunal reached the quantum of damages amounting to (€20,000) which it granted to the applicant without any motivation.
...........omissis...........
For these reasons, the applicant company whilst referring to the proof producedand producible according to law including the reference to the evidence of the respondent who is from now called to testify humbly asks this Honourable Court to reform this decision above mentioned of the Industrial Tribunal in the names premised given on the 12th March, 2014 as demanded in the appeal application, including that if the Honourable Court reaches the conclusion that the dismissal was not made for a just, good and sufficient reason at law, it variesthe compensationliquidated and liquidate the compensation which shall be just and reasonable in the present case.
Appellant company: ST Microelectronics (Malta) Ltd, Industry Road, Kirkop.
Respondent: Sergio Ciantar, ‘The Nest’, Flat 2, Triq l-Affreski, Rabat, Malta.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 849
849By means of a decree of the 14th March, 2014 by the Civil Court First Hall in the records of the judicial letter number 1595/13, in the names Director General of Value Added Tax vs Jesmond Tonna, ordered the following publication for the purpose of service of the respondent in terms of Article 187 (3) of Cap.12.
In the First Hall of the Civil Courts
To: Jesmond Tonna (ID 354974M), ofFlat 16, Qawra Towers, Triq il-Qawra, San Pawl il-Baħar, Malta.
By the present, the Director General of Value Added Tax of Centre Point Building, Ta’ Paris Road, Birkirkara, calls upon you so that within two days you pay the sum of €200,580.25due by you as Value Added Tax.
The Director General warns youthat he has given you a notice in terms of Cap. 406 of the Laws of Malta (Act regarding the Value Added Tax) to pay the amount above mentioned but you failed to do so.
Therefore you are being informed that if you fail to pay the amount due by you in the stipulated time given, he will proceed to file executive acts to enforce the debt due to him according to law in terms of Article 59 of Cap. 406.
So much for your own guidance.
With costs of this present and the relative interest till the effective payment.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 850
850By means of a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal, of the 5th January, 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).
Dingli Co. International Limited as mandatory of the foreign company The Performing Right Society Limited of London, England (C 7692),of 18/2, South Street, Valletta VLT 11,filed a Claim on the 19th December, 2013 whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn George Lapira, of Flat 16, Block 2, Triq il-Mediterran, Valletta, and/or Ristorante Ordine, 47, Main Street, St Julians STJ 1089, to pay the plaintiff company the sum of €827.27, which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With costs and interests.
The case (Claim Number 801/13VG2) is deferred for the 18th June, 2014 at 1.00 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 851
851By means of a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal, of the 24th April, 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).
B4 Textiles Co Ltd (C 8858), of 418, Żabbar Road, Fgura,filed a Claim on the 7th February, 2014 whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemnDavid Paris (ID 547157M), of Belmonte Heights, Block G, Apartment 5, Ignazio Street, Sliema, to pay the plaintiff company the sum of €590, which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With costs and interests.
The case (Claim Number 87/14YMS) is deferred for the 18th June, 2014 at 12.30 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 852
852It is hereby notified that the Court of Magistrates (Malta), by means of a decree given on the 24th April, 2014 in the records of the judicial letter number 382/14, in the namesFogg Insurance Agencies Limited vs Caroline Sammut et, ordered the following publication for the purpose of effecting service on the respondent in terms of Article 187 (3) of Cap. 12.
By means of a judicial letter filed in the Court of Magistrates (Malta) against Caroline Sammut, of 72, Belvedere, Triq il-Mediterran, Pembroke, and Raymond Sammut, of 72, Belvedere, Triq il-Mediterran, Pembroke,on the 14th February, 2014 Fogg Insurance Agencies Limited (C 597), for and on behalf of the foreign company Argus Insurance Company (Europe) Limited,ofLa Concorde, Abate Rigord Street, Ta’ Xbiex, whilst referring to the Mandatory Arbitration in the names Sergei Douchenkov vs Raymond Sammut (M3783/2013) that was filed in your own name Raymond Sammut in connection with the car accident which occured on the 13th March, 2013 in Triq il-Mediterran, Pembroke,with the vehicle registration number GBN 124,insured by you Caroline Sammut with the applicant, and to the fact that you notwithstanding that you were warned by the applicant, you still refused to register a claim in connection with the same accident, and to pay the excess payment due in favour of the applicant in terms of therelative insurance policy.
Such behaviour on your part is in violation of the conditions of the insurance policy issued by the applicant on the vehicle with registration number GBN 124.
Thus, the applicant is from now retaining unprejudiced its right to sue you in solidum between you for the payment of all the amounts that it might be obliged to pay to third parties involved in the proceedings of Mandatory Arbitration if these are decided against you Raymond Sammut, and this besides the costs and legal interest.
Without prejudice for the above mentioned, the interpellant informs for the last time so that immediately you register a claim and pay the excess payment due by you regarding this case.
So much so that you may know how to regulate yourselves and to avoid useless costs and further procedures.
With costs.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 853
853By means of a decree on the 6th May, 2014 in the records of the judicial letter number 3884/13, in the names Gasan Enterprises Limited vs Pierre Debono et, the Courts of Magistrates (Malta) 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 Pierre Debono (ID 580776M), and Daphne Debono (ID 327977M), of 15, Rose, Triq il-Ġjaċinti, San Ġwann, on the 24th December, 2013 Gasan Enterprises Limited (C 467) of Mrieħel By Pass, Mrieħel:
1. makes reference to the amount of €4,270 on a number of bills exchange duly accepted by you and indicated in the attached list as GEL1, and which amount is due and has not been paid (copies of these bills of exchange are herewith attached and marked as document GEL 2), together with interest from the date when the aforementioned balance fell due on the bills of exchange till the date of effective payment; and
2. solicits you so that within ten (10) days from the day you are notified with this present, you pay the sum of €4,270 representing the balance on the said bills of exchange.
In default, the interpellant company will furtherly proceed against you without further notice, and with all the means given by law including the issue of the opportune warrants.
This letter is being made for all the purposes and effects of law, and to render the same bills of exchange an executive title in terms of Article 253 (e) of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta.
By means of this present, you are informed that in terms of Article 253 (e) of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta, you have the right that within twenty (20) days from the date ofservice of this act,you will present an application to oppose the execution of these bills of exchange above mentioned on the fact that the signatures on the same do not belong to your or those of your mandatory, or for other grave and valid reasons to oppose such execution according to law.
So much so that you may know how to regulate yourself.
With costs including this present, and with interest according to law till the date of effective payment.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 854
854By a decree of the Consumer Claims Tribunal, of the 14th April, 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).
Amanda and Patrick Mahoney, of Valley View Court/7, Triq Żakkew, Imsida, filed a Claim on the 17th February, 2014 whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn David Camilleri of D. Marmi, Tal-Ħandaq, Qormi, to pay the plaintiffs the sum of €1,800 which amount is due to the plaintiffs.
The case (CCT Number 38/14) is deferred for the 23rd June, 2014 at 1.30 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 855
855By means of a decree of the 6th May, 2014 of the Court of Magistrates (Malta), in the records of judicial letter number 343/14, in the names Dr Alexia Farrugia Zrinzo et vs Steve Muscat, ordered the following publication for the purpose of effecting service on the respondents in terms of Article 187 (3) et. seq. of Cap. 12.
In the Court of Magistrates (Malta)
To: Steve Muscat of Siberia, Flat 1, Triq is-Siberja, Marsaskala.
By the present, Doctor of Laws Alexia J Farrugia Zrinzo (ID 43182M), and PL Nicholette Aquilina (ID 397867M), of 204/3, Triq l-Ifran, Valletta, reference is made to the law suit in the names Steve Muscat vs Joan Muscat decided by the First Hall of the Civil Court (Family Section), on the 13th June, 2012.
By means of the mentioned judgement, you were condemned to pay all the costs in connection with the same case.
In terms of the official taxed bill of costs for fees and costs of the same law suit (Dok. A), the amount due by you is €307.87, that together with €55.42 as VAT on the amount amounts to €363.29.
This sum has to be paid within two days from today, and in default the opportune warrants will be filed against you.
So much for your own guidance and to regulate your position.
With costs.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 856
856By means of a decree given by the First Hall Civil Court, on the 22nd May, 2014 in the records of the Sworn Application, in the names Malta Fairs and Conventions Centre Ltd vs Events Travel and Incentives Limited, Application number 127/14 MCH, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the defendant company 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 Malta Fairs and Conventions Centre Ltd (C 39678) vs Events Travel and Incentives Limited (C 13049), on the 11th February, 2014 the applicant commercial partnership MaltaFairs and Conventions Centre Ltd, registration number (C 39678), asked the defendant company why for the reasons mentioned in the application this Court should not:
Proceed to give judgement according to the demand of the plaintiff company without proceeding to a hearing in terms of Articles 167 to 170 of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure, condemn the defendant company to pay the plaintiff company the amount of €20,948.27 due in connection with services rendered to the defendant company following its instructions for the reasons premised in the application.
With costs and legal interests as demanded against the defendant company summoned so that a reference to its evidence be made.
Application: Millenium Stand, First Floor, National Stand, Ta’ Qali.
Service: 206, Tower Road, Sliema.
The cause Sworn Application in the names Malta Fairs and Conventions Centre Ltd vs Events Travel and Incentives Limited, application number 127/14 MCH, has been appointed for hearing to Tuesday, 24th June, 2014 at 9.00 a.m.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals