Mur Lura
Court Notices published in Govt. Gazette No. 19,303 of 29th August 2014
01/01/2014
Notice 1320
1320IT IS BEING NOTIFIED that by a decree dated 12th August 2014 given by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Inquiry – (Magistrate Dr Marse-Anne Farrugia LL.D) Compilation Number in the case: 755/2014
The Police
(Inspector Jason Francis Sultana)
Versus:
THERESA CUTAJAR, 60 years, unemployed, daughter of Anthony, and Carmela née Formosa born in Gżira, on the 1st January 1954, and residing at Flat 1, Victoria Flats, Testaferrata Street, Ta’ Xbiex and holder of ID Card number 313354(M).
AND
ELMLETI MOHAMED SAAD, 25 years, unemployed son of Saad and Zhornée Boxi, born in Tripoli, on the 25th June 1987, and residing at Flat 1, Victoria Flats, Testaferrata Street, Ta’ Xbiex, and holder of ID Card number 66797(A).
ORDERED the attachment in the hands of third parties in general of all monies and other movable property due to or pertaining or belonging to Theresa Cutajar and Elmleti Mohamed Saad and prohibits the said accused from transferring, pledging, hypothecating or otherwise disposing of any movable or immovable property, and this according to Article 5 of the Money Laundering Act Cap. 373 of the Laws of Malta, in accordance with Article 23A (2) of Cap. 9 of the Laws of Malta.
Dr John Seychell Navarro
Dip. Hlth Science, Dip Mgmt Stud, Dip.Not.Pub.,LL.B., LL.D
Assistant Registrar
Criminal Courts and Criminal Tribunals
Notice 1321
1321By a decree given on the 24th March, 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 (5) of the Code of Organization and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12).
By decree given by the CIVIL COURT, FIRST HALL on the 21st July 2014, on the application of NISSO LIMITED, Thursday, 25th September, 2014 at half past eleven in the morning (11.30 a.m.), has been fixed for the SALE BY AUCTION, to be held on THE FIRST FLOOR, COURTS OF JUSTICE, REPUBLIC STREET VALLETTA of the following property.
Apartment internally marked number four (4), on the second floor, forming part of a block of appartments consisting of basement and semi-basement garages underlaying six floors. The appartmentis overlaid and underlaid by property of third parties forming part of a block of apartments named ‘Antonin’, in Triq Sant’ Agatha, Sliema. The property is free and unencumbered valued at one hundred and sixty seven thousand Euros (€167,000).
The said tenement is the property of UNIBUILD COMPANY LIMITED.
N.B. The said property will be sold as described in the acts of the file number 100/13.
Rudolph MarmarÀ
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1322
1322By decree given by the Civil Court, First Hall on 3rd July, 2014, on the application of Galea Henry et, Tuesday, 23rd September, 2014 at eleven o’clock in the morning (11.00 a.m.), has been fixed for the SALE BY AUCTION, to be held in the First Floor of these Courts of Justice, Republic Street, Valletta of the following property.
Apartment number four (4) named ‘Movouveen’ in Triq Sebastiano Saliba, Luqa, on the second floor, free and unencumbered with its airspace rights to build another floor and penthouse under current policies of MEPA valued at one hundred and thirty thousand Euro (€130,000).
The said tenement is the property of Raymond Bugeja (I.D.310856M) and Doris Bugeja (I.D.297781M).
N.B. The said tenement will be sold as described in the acts of file number 73/10.
Marvic Farrugia
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1323
1323IT IS BEING NOTIFIED that by a decree dated 10th July 2014, given by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Inquiry – (Magistrate Dr. Antonio Giovanni Vella LLD) after an application filed by Francis Sammut ID 117049(M) dated 30th June 2014, Compilation number 171/2013, in the case:
The Police
(Inspector Jonathan Ferris)
versus:
FRANCIS SIVE FRANK SAMMUT, 63 years, Company Director, son of the late Carmel and Francesca Saveria néePace, born in Tarxien, on the 25th December, 1950 residing at ‘Stafford’, Il-Patrijiet Tereżjani Street, Marsaxlokk and holder of Identity card bearing number 39351(M).
AUTHORISED Bank of Valletta plc to pay Francis Sammut half her share of interests and any profit due to her from the administration of the portfolio number 30001158 which now has been given the number 25931138-1.
The publication of this order is being published in terms of Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Cap. 373 of the Laws of Malta and Section 23A of the Criminal Code, Cap. 9 of the Laws of Malta, following another publication made on the 30th April 2013, after a decree of the same Court on the 25th April 2013, following another publication made on the 20th March 2013, after a decree of the same Court on the 14th March 2013, following another publication made on the 5th March 2013, after a decree of the same Court on the 28th February 2013 and following another publication made on the 22nd of February 2013, after a decree of the same Court differently presided on the 19th February 2013, whereas the Court ordered the attachment in the hands of third parties in a general manner, all monies and other moveable and immoveable property which may be due to or belonging to Francis sive Frank Sammut.
Dr John Seychell Navarro
Dip.Hlth.Science, Dip Mgmt Stud, Dip.Not.Pub.,LL.B., LLD
Assistant Registrar
Criminal Courts and Criminal Tribunals
Notice 1324
1324By means of a decree, given, on the 18th July 2014, by the Court of Appeal, in the records of the Appeal Application, in the names Joe Vella vs Lino Stafrace et, Application number 1181/00, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent AIC Philip Azzopardi, in terms of Article 187(3) et seq. of Cap. 12.
By means of an Application, filed, in the Court of Appeal, Writ of Summons Number 1181/00 in the names Joe Vella vs 1) Lino and Angele Stafrace 2) AIC Philip Azzopardi, 3) Carmel Raymond Micallef in his own name and on behalf of RC Construction Limited and 4) Raymond Calleja, on the 5th June 2014, the applicant Joe Vella respectfully pleaded:
That the applicant resided in the premises number 25, Cathedral Street, Sliema,together with his mother Rita Vella and her brother Anthony Mifsud, which premises belonged to his mother. That on the 12th April 2000, his mother lost her life when the building collapsed as a result of works which were being carried out in the premises number 24, property of Lino and Angele Stafrace...omiss... That the said premises is no longer habitable in the state in which it is and has to be built anew and the plaintiff found hmself without a place of residence. That he had to incurr an expense for alternative accomodation. That for this incident the defendants are to blame.
That the applicant asked the Court;
1.... To declare that the defendants or either of whom are responsible for all the damages suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the said accident.
2. Liquidate the consequential damages so suffered.
3. Condemn the defendant or either of whom to pay the plaintiff the damages so liquidated.
4.With costs against the defendants summoned so that a reference to their evidence be made.
That the defendants contested the demands of the applicants.
That in virtue of a judgement in the names premised given on the 16th May 2014, the Honourable Civil Court, First Hall decided so;
For these motives the Court decides the cause by
1..... Rejecting the first plea of Architect Philip Azzopardi, with costs against him.
2. Rejecting the second plea of Architect Philip Azzopardi, with costs against him.
3............omissis..........
4............omissis..........
5............omissis..........
6............omissis..........
7............omissis..........
8............omissis..........
9............omissis..........
10. Whilst declaring that the defendants Micallef, RC Construction Limited and Raymond Micallef, are responsible in solidum for what happened of the 12th April 2000 and for any damages which the plaintiff may have suffered due to lack of proof reject the second and third demand of the plaintiff.
Saving what happened regarding the costs.
That the applicant felt aggrieved with the above mentioned judgement and is filing an appeal therefrom before this Honourable Court.
That the facts in brief are the following:
That the lawsuit relating to the collapse of the premises number 25, Cathedral Street, Sliema, which occurred on the day of the 12th April 2000. In this premises there lived Rita Vella, mother of the plaintiffs, the applicat Joseph Vella and her brother Anthony Mifsud. Rita Vella died as a result of the injuries she suffered in the incident, whilst the applicant Joseph Vella was caught under the collapsed building...omissis.... Rita Vella, Joseph Vella and Anthony Mifsud, as a result of the collapse of the building, lost the furniture, their belongings and personal effects.
That the grievance of the applicant is clear and manifest and consists in the following:
1......That the Honourable Court of First Instance, reached the right conclusion regarding the cause of the collapse of the building and regarding the serious defaults encountered it did not reach the entirely correct conclusions regarding the legal responsibility of the defendants.
2. From the proof produced it results that the applicant was caught under the debris and luckily he came out alive. After he managed to get out from the debris he was admitted to care in hospital. However the Court of First Instance, although it was asked to liquidate all the consequential damages did not liquidate any moral and material damages. This with all respect stultifies not only the purpose for which the lawsuit was made but even the purpose of justice. The applicant feels very aggrieved with this.
3. Now the Honourable Court of First Instance observed thus.
.................omissis..................
4. That the applicant besides being seriously injured, lost all his belongings. In such a case, how can the applicant produce documentation relating to his possessions when due to the same collapse of the house everything was destroyed ?...omissis... Can a person live in a place, the place collapses he institutes Court action and is left with no compensation ? This besides the moral damages he suffered when the building collapsed upon him and he was caught under it.
5. It is the case that the lawsuit relates to a technical matter but the Honourable First Court, helped by the conclusions of the referee Architect Alan Saliba, had before it a very clear picture of the responsibilities regarding each one of the directors.
6. Unfortunately the Honourable Court of First Instance, exonerated from the legal responsibility all the owners of the premises which was being demolished and this despite that there is specific proof regarding the owners Lino and Angele spouses Stafrace.
7. One of the points that the applicants state that resulted is that the defendant Lino Stafrace gave instructions to the contractor Carmel Raymond Micallef without the knowledge of Architect Philip Azzopardi, to excavate as deeply as possible so that the underlying premises which was intended as a ‘commercial premises’ shall not be much higher than the street level.
.................omissis.............
Thus the evidence of the contractor Architect Philip Azzopardi on this point is more close to the truth and should be believed. We find that Philip Azzopardi himself testified during the sitting of the 9th April 2010, that when he asked the contractor why he had excavated so deeply, he told him ‘that in the first place the material is very soft and secondly the owners did not wish so many steps to reach the groundfloor’.
................omissis.............
That thus whilst the Court of First Instance, stated ‘that it does not see as likely that Stafrace gave orders to the contractor to excavate so deeply in the premises, the applicant feels that the evidence is more close to the truth in the sense that Micallef testified that Architect Azzopardi ‘ex post facto’ had gone down more deeply to avoid the steps from the street to the shop.
8. Without prejudice to this matter regarding the judicial expenses of the defendant Lino and Angele spouses Stafrace the applicant shall submit that these should not be borne by him but in any case the defendants condemned for the payment of damages.
9. Another grievance relates to the exoneration from responsibility of Architect Philip Azzopardi, as regards the damages suffered by the plaintiff. He was held responsible because he failed to take the necessary precautions and those set down by the buildin g trade...omissis.. the Honourable First Court limited his responsibility to the death of Rita Vella, but not to the collpase. This with the greatest respect is a fallacious line which cannot but bring about wrong conclusions. Architect Azzopardi is not disconected from what the Court of First Instance called ‘ negligence of others’and he cannot move away from it. omissis.. Architect Azzopardi, drew up, decided, applied and gave directives but did not carry out well and with full diligence the duty to supervise the demolition and excavation with the building of third parties and this brought about this tragedy. Surveillance is indispensable for the carrying out of the duty of diligence where the life of third parties is involved. It is under this aspect that Architect Azzopardi rendered himself responsible not only for the death of Rita Vella and the burial under the debris of Joseph Vella, when the building collapsed, but also for the lack of surveillance and the collapse of the residence of Rita Vella, her son Joseph Vella and her brother Anthony Mifsud...omissis... the Court of First Instance itself declared that ‘the excavation is a very dangerous operation’ but Architect Azzopardi was never present although he lived in Sliema. Thus the judgement appealed in so far as it declared that the Architect is not to blame for the damage which occurred in the building of third parties (the applicant ) is incorrect legally and factually.
10. Another grievance relates to the lack of liquidation of moral damages in the case of the plaintiff which was caught alive under the debris. Their mother Rita Vella, died in this incident. The applicant does not agree at all on the mode how our Courts applied the civil law, regarding damages, which does not acknowledge moral damages in civil matters, the applicant brought forward this appeal, so that till the appeal filed by him is appointed, there shall have been carried out the reform in the sphere of civil damages and there come into force moral damages or rather for ‘pain and suffering’.
11. Another grievance relates to the damages suffered by the plaintiff when he finished without a residence. The Court of First Instance stated that the plaintiff is demanding payment due to his ending up without a residence and lost his personal belongings. The Court of First Instance commented ‘After the Court saw the records it did not result that the plaintiff brought about proof regarding the damages he allegdely suffered.............omissis..The Court observes that it gave every party the opportunity to present a note with questions to the technical referee. In this regard the plaintiff remained silent. With the utmost respect, the applicant states that this is not the correct position. The applicant brought foward proof in the principal cause and brought foward a note of submissions in the principal cause. The three lawsuits were heard together and the proof was all brought foward in the principal cause 1111/00.
12.Another grievance relates to the liquidation of the value of the movables. No liquidation of the furniture which Joe Vella had, was made. Can it be that he had no furniture in the premises 25, when he lived there ? The list of furniture of the plaintiff Joe Vella, was presented in the records of the cause but nothing was liquidated.
13. Another grievance concerns the loss of use of the premises number 25. The premises which collapsed was the place of residence of Joseph Vella. He not only ended up without a home but lost all that he possessed. He lost everything...omissis........ Thus this loss is to be quantified ‘arbitrio boni viri’ because there existed the right of use and habitation.
14. Reference to the grievance regarding the judicial expenses was already made. In brief this plaintiff was caught under the debris and is now being caught under an avalanche of judicial expenses...omissis... The conclusion of the Court of First Instance in the principal lawsuit that ‘ the defendants were summoned by all the plaintiffs. A free choice which was made by the plaintiffs. Therefore it is the plaintiffs who have to carry the burden of the costs of those defendants which were not found responsible for the accident, is obviously a conclusion which presumes the gift of prophecy, which the applicant does not have. It does more sense that one states that ‘prima facie’ the plaintiff was right to summon all the spouses Stafrace and Architect Philip Azzopardi, but once the Court, felt that these should be exonerated, their judicial expenses are to be borne by the defendants.
15. Thus the applicant whilst presenting this appeal from the judgemenet appealed given on the 16th May 2014, in the names premised, respectfully prays that this Honourable Court, modifies the judgement appealed by upholding the appeal, revoking and cancelling the judgement appealed as demanded in this application, with costs against the condemned defendants.
Notify Respondent: Architect Philip Azzopardi, 167, St. Lucia Street, Valletta.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals.
Notice 1325
1325By a decree given on 1st August, 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 Organization and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12).
By the application filed in the Civil Court First Hall on the 29th May, 2014 by Bank of Valletta plc (C2833), application number 34/14 in the names Bank of Valletta plc vs Vincent Spiteri et being asked that the Court orders the sale by auction of the:
Garage, number four (4), forming part from a complex of six garages (6), number one hundred and fifty five (155), Alley number 2, Main Street, Żabbar, and is subject to annual and perpetual ground rent of thirty two Euro and ninety eight cents (€32.98), otherwise free and unencumbered with all its rights and appurtenances.
The said property belongs to Vincent Spiteri (I.D. 76046M) and Mary Spiteri (I.D. 422449M).
Marvic Farrugia
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1326
1326By means of a decree given, by the First Hall Civil Court, on the 12th August 2014, in the records of the Sworn application, in the names Advocate Dr. Tonio Fenech noe vs Interdrive Limited et, application number 391/14 JZM, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent 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 Advocate Dr.Tonio Fenech, idenity card number 473663(M) as special mandatary of the foreign company Campadre Scandinavia AB, a company registered, in Switzerland, registered address Regeringsgaten 25, 1153, Stockholm, Switzerland, Vat Registration number SE556795 -7245 01 vs 1.Interdrive Limited C 51382 and 2. Tina Agri German Passport Number 118714844, on the 7th May 2014, the applicant company asked this Honourable Court:
1....... To declare and decide that the objects sold and transferred to the applicant company, by the respondent company are false and not authentic and /or are not of the quality agreed if necessary by means of the appointment of experts by the Court for this purpose, declare and decide that the respondents or either of whom acted in bad faith during all the business with the applicant company and uphold the other demands in the application.
With costs and interest against the respondents sumoned so that a reference to their evidence be made.
Service 1. 4, Triq l-Isqof Pace, Mellieħa.
2. St. Joseph Flats, Flat 4, Triq l-Isqof Pace, Mellieħa.
The Sworn Application in the names Advocate Dr. Tonio Fenech noe vs Interdrive Limited et, was appointed for hearing on the 13th October 2014, at 9.00 a.m.
Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD
For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals