Court Notices published in Govt. Gazette No. 19,440 of 12 June 2015

By means of a decree given on the 17th March 2015, by the Court of Appeal, in the records of the Appeal Application, in the names Rachel Galea vs Emanuel Galea, Appeal number 348/06 JA, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent Emanuel Galea in terms of Article 187 (3) et. seq. of Cap. 12.

By means of an Appeal Application and an Incidental Appeal of Rachel Galea (ID 334676M), filed in the Court of Appeal, in the names Rachel Galea vs Emanuel Galea, on the 16th December 2014, the applicant Rachel Galea (ID 334676M) humbly pleaded:

Appeal Reply.

That as regards the grievances brought forward by the appellant in his Principal Appeal, the interpellant humbly submits that the decision given by the Civil Court (Family Section) is just and merits to be confirmed saving for the points brought forward by the respondent in the grievances of her Incidental Appeal.

That it is accepted by both parties that the business that he operated in the shop with the name ‘Celine’ was opened during the marriage of the parties and is part of the community of acquests.

...........omissis...........

That Rachel Galea in her sworn affidavit of the 9th August 2007 (not contradicted in cross-examination) testified that the shop ‘Celine’, Luqa Briffa Street, Luqa, is a grocer which was taken on lease after marriage. The shop is filled with stock, there are no debts in favour of agents. During marriage various ameliorations were made amongst which freezers, fridges, shelves ...omissis... For this we had taken a loan and Rachel had guaranteed this debt with the Bank.

That the interpellant humbly submits that the value of the lease of the shop was established by this Honourable Court arbitrio bono viri at Euro 20,000, is a conservative one. That it is to be stated that the value of the lease does not include the value of the goodwill, of the stock of the shop, appliances and other payments made during marriage.

...........omissis...........

That the interpellant humbly submits that the lease of the shop has a value and the value of the lease belongs till this day to the community of acquests, and it is irrelevant thus for the purpose of this exercise whether the appellant still opens the shop or not.

That it is also to be stated that the interpellant was ordered to pay for her share from the overdraft, her share is going to be paid partly from her share of the profits of the shop which could be liquidated and the balance from the sale of the house appertaining to the community of acquests ...omissis... That it is a case whereby the appellant is expecting to hold all the assets and share the liabilities an argument which is legally fallacious.

...........omissis...........

That without prejudice to the above, the interpellant refers to the second and third grievance of the incidental appeal brought by her and humbly submits that if her demands are upheld no compensation has to be made with the insurance policy which was withdrawn by her in so far as it is being argued that these were paraphernal funds belonging to her and consequently the appellant is to be condemned to pay the respondent the sum of Euro 20,000 which is the value of the lease which the Honourable Civil Court (Family Section) arbitrio bono viri liquidated, which is the value of the lease of the shop which belongs to the community of acquests.

That the interpellant is opposing also the appellant’s request that she pays one half of the payments made by her for the house loan till the house is sold. As pointed out by the Honourable Court of First Instance, the profits of the shop after the year 2007, were not liquidated. That these were effectively held by the appellant as well as the stock, appliances, etc. which were bought by the community of acquests and can be used in order that the interpellant’s share of the house loan be paid and other payments made by the appellant for debts which are at the charge of both parties.

Incidental Appeal of the respondent Rachel Galea.

A. That by means of a Writ of Summons, the respondent after having premised, that the applicant Rachel Galea and the defendant Emanuel Galea were married on the 23rd January 1998, that from the marriage two children were born ...omissis... That Emanuel Galea rendered himself guilty towards the applicant his wife of adultery etc. and the applicant was authorised to proceed for personal separation by means of a decree of the Civil Court (Family Section) hereby attached. Thus, the applicant humbly asked this Honourable Court for the reasons premised: 1. To pronounce the personal separation between the parties ...omissis... 5. To liquidate the paraphernal assets of the plaintiff, condemn the respondent to return to the applicant all her paraphernal assets, 6. Apply against the respondent the sanctions contemplated in Articles 48 and 51 of the Civil code, with costs against the respondent summoned so that a reference to his evidence be made.

B. That in the sworn reply presented on the 19th February 2007, the defendant pleaded, that it is the case that he and his wife Rachel Galea were married on the 23rd January 1998, that from this marriage they had two children that it is not the case that the interpellant rendered himself guilty against the applicant of adultery, who even abandoned the matrimonial home. He has no objection to pay the adequate maintenance for the children according to his means but objects to pay any form of maintenance to his wife, because she has a relationship with a third party, and thus he should not be bound to maintain her.

...........omissis...........

C. That by means of a Judgement of the 24th October 2014, the Honourable Civil Court (Family Section) decided the following:

Thus, the Court decided this cause by as regards the plaintiff’s demands:

1. Pronouncing the personal separation between the parties for the reasons already mentioned.

2. Orders that the care and custody of the parties remains joint.

3. Upholds the third demand.

4. As regards the fourth demand orders the dissolution and liquidation of the community of acquests by ordering the sale of the premises 43, St Michael Street, Fgura.

5. ...........omissis...........

6. Upholds the sixth demand.

The costs of the cause are to be paid in half by each of the parties, and even the expenses of the referee are to be paid equally by the parties.

That the grievances are clear and manifest and consist in the following:

1. That the Honourable Civil Court (Family Section) made a wrong assessment of the facts when it decided that the tort for the separation is to be attributed to both parties equally.

2. That the Honourable Court of First Instance (Family Section) made a wrong assessment of the facts when it failed to declare that the interpellant has a paraphernal credit of (€22,797.97).

3 ...........omissis...........

4. That the Honourable Court of First Instance when it ordered the defendant to pay maintenance for the two minor children for ninety Euro (€ 90) weekly ...omissis... and if they still attend an educational institute until they are 23 years old as provide by law failed to provide for the increase according to the cost of living index.

Regarding the First Grievance.

That the Honourable Court (Family Section) made a wrong assessment of the facts when it decided that the tort for the separation is attributable to both parties.

That the interpellant humbly submits that the marriage broke down due to adultery committed by the defendant, and that such adultery was prior to the separation procedures of the parties.

That apart from her evidence, the interpellant produced an indipendent witness (a fol 70-75) a private investigator who confirmed that in the year 2005, the defendant was already in relationship with a certain Claire Fenech.

...........omissis...........

That the interpellant humbly submits that this principal reason for the separation between the parties, and that the person she knew and with whom she admitted to have had a relationship after the appellant had started his relationship with Claire Fenech.

That the interpellant submits that she was not the cause of the breakdown of the marriage between the parties, and thus it should be declared that it was the same Emanuel Galea who is solely responsible for the breakdown of the marriage between the parties.

Regarding the Second Grievance.

That the Honourable Civil Court (Family Section) made a wrong assessment of the facts when it failed to declare that the interpellant has a paraphernal credit of €22,797.97.

That the interpellant humbly submits that from the documentary proof exhibited in the proceedings, it resulted that the interpellant before marriage had the following Bank deposits and namely:

...........omissis...........

That thus before marriage, the interpellant had paraphernal funds amounting to €22,797.97. Subsequently, these funds were withdrawn to be used in order to make a Single Premium Life Policy with the Bank HSBC.

That the interpellant refers to the Affidavit of the appellant which confirms that the investment (insurance policy) with HSBC is an investment which was made from paraphernal funds of the plaintiff.

Regarding the third Grievance.

That the Court made a wrong assessment when it ordered that the interpellant is to give to the appellant one half of the value of the insurance policy which was registered in her name, which policy consisted in paraphernal funds belonging to her.

...........omissis...........

That the interpellant humbly submits that the only policy she had except those of the children is the policy of insurance with HSBC (Malta) plc which had been opened with her paraphernal funds as it had been proved, and thus legally she is not bound to refund any amount to the defendant from this policy.

...........omissis...........

That the interpellant is asking this Honourable Court of Appeal to declare that no money is due by her to Emanuel Galea on this insurance policy which was proved to have been made by her paraphernal funds, and thus it follows that no compensation is to be made with the value of the lease of the shop Celine which in virtue of this judgement shall be assigned to the defendant.

Regarding the Fourth Grievance.

That the Honourable First Court when it ordered the defendant to pay maintenance for the two minor children for ninety Euro (€ 90) weekly ...omissis... failed to provide that the maintenance be increased according to the cost of living index.

That the interpellant is asking that an order be made by the Court of Appeal regarding the cost of living, and this so that the maintenance be annually adjusted to reflect the value of the money.

Thus, the interpellant whilst humbly referring to the proof produced and that which can be produced according to law at this stage of Appeal, humbly submits that this Honourable Court of Appeal, changes, varies and reforms the judgement of the Honourable Civil Court (Family Section) of the 24th October 2014, in the names Rachel Galea vs Emanuel Galea (Sworn Application Number 348/06 JA), as demanded in this Appeal Application ...omissis... amongst which the fifth heading of the judgement of the Honourable Court of First Instance, in the sense that it be declared that Rachel Galea has a paraphernal credit of €22,797.97 and that the rest of the judgement be confirmed.

With costs of both instances against the defendant respondent.

Service: 81, St Michael Street, Fgura.

Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD

For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree given on the 2nd July 2014, by the Court of Appeal, in the records of the Appeal Application, in the names Advocate Leslie Grech pro et noe vs Pace Albert et, Application number 54/08 GG, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of the respondents in terms of Article 187 (3) et. seq. of Cap. 12.

By means of an Appeal Application filed in the Court of Appeal, in the names Advocate Leslie Grech (ID 103265M) in his own name and as mandatory of the absent Joyoti Mary Grech and Gitali Melvin, together with Advocate David Grech (ID 293057M), in his own name and as mandatory of the absent Professor Christopher Grech and Dorothy Higgins and following the death of Advocate Leslie Grech, the records were transferred in the name of Dr David Grech, Professor Christopher Grech and Dorothy Higgins, by a decree of the 3rd February 2012, and by the same decree Dr David Grech assumed the representation of the absent Joyoti Mary Grech and Gitali Melvin vs Albert Pace (ID 777256M) and Grace Pace (ID 777358M), on the 28th March 2014, the appellants Advocate Leslie Grech et respectfully pleaded:

1. That in virtue of the application presented on the 29th August 2008, before the Rent Regulation Board (further on simply called the Board), the interpellants asked that they be authorised not to renew the lease and take back possession of the premises Flat 2, 234, Triq Sant’Ursula, Valletta, granted on lease to the respondents as their residence.

2. That in their reply, the respondents in the first place demanded proof of the mandate in favour of Advocate Leslie Grech to represent Joyoti Mary Grech and Gitali Melvin, who are absent from these Islands. As regards the merit they pleaded: (a) the irregularity of the procedures as demanded for the payment of rent as required by law in the case of delay was made and (b) that Article 5(3) of Cap. 158 is not relevant to the cause and (c) the applicant’s demands are unfounded in fact and at law and no amount is due to the applicants.

3. That in virtue of a preliminary judgement given on the 9th June 2010, the Board rejected the plea regarding Article 5(3) of Cap. 158 but by a final judgement given on the 13th March 2014, the Board after having established that valid proof had been brought forward of the mandate given by the absentees rejected the interpellant’s request not to renew the lease in favour of respondents due to ‘renewal of the lease due to the acceptance of the rent’ without reservation even if lately.

4. That the interpellants felt aggreived by this judgement.

5. That the grievance is clear and manifest and consists in the following:

6. That the first grievance is based on the fact that the Board made a mistake when it established that the payment due on the 1st July 2008, for six months till the 31st December 2008, was paid on the 8th July 2008, and thus ‘within the term of fifteen days from the calling’. That infact the respondents were called upon by a letter dated 1st July 2008, they received on the 2nd July 2008. ...omissis... Thus there is agreement between the parties on the delay regarding this payment of the 1st July 2008, and it has to be added to the others whereby the respondents paid later than fifteen days after having been called to do so.

7. That it is submitted that if the Board had not taken this mistake and if it considered that there was the delay required by law which was the payment before the law suit was instituted a different assessment of the proof produced would have been made.

...........omissis...........

8. That the second grievance is regarding the interpretation of the Board, that the acceptance of the rent by the owner although late and without reservation before the date of the presentation of the original application implies a renewal of the lease and it seems that the Board wants to interpret this as a renunciation to the right of the owner to use this incident as a cause to institute proceedings for the taking back of possession.

9. That in order that there be given the legal background it is explained that this demand is based on chronic delay of the respondents in the payment of rent. The premises is subject to the provisions of Cap. 158 of the Laws of Malta, (a) was granted on lease before June 1995, (b) it is a decontrolled urban tenement and (c) the lease is during the period of renewal in virtue of the same Cap. 158.

10. In terms of Article 5(3) (b) of Cap. 158 the delay is a clear cause for the taking back of possession.

...........omissis...........

11. That in the original application the allegation of the interpellants is that the respondents were in delay in the sense of the law (namely 15 days after the calling) for the payments which were due on the 1st July 2008 ...omissis... and the 1st January 2003. These are seven payments over a period of five years when the law requires as a cause only two.

12. That in fact the interpellants did not take judicial action before the 29th August 2008, does not show acquiesence in the behaviour of the respondents as the respondents seem to imply and the Board seems to be interpreting great patience and control of the frustrations of an owner who is deprived from the possession of his property.

...........omissis...........

13. That as regards the necessary proof to substantiate the cause of delay for the payments indicated, the interpellants refer to the evidence of Advocate Leslie Grech, as given in Affidavit Doc. E with the note of the 15th May 2009.

14. ...........omissis...........

15. ...........omissis...........

16. Advocate Leslie Grech testified regarding another occasion, a letter exhibited as Doc. L dated 1st July 2008, by means of calling for the payment which lapsed on the 1st July 2008. This payment whereby the Board erroneously found that there was no delay. This was sent by means of the pink card and was notified on the 2nd July 2008 ...omissis... That thus even here there is the delay required by law.

17. It also appears from copies of other letters exhibited by the interpellants with the note of the 15th May 2009, that the respondents were in delay in other payments.

...........omissis...........

18. That the respondent Albert Pace testified during the sitting of the 4th April 2013. He admitted in cross-examination that he received various letters from Advocate Leslie Grech, and admitted that sometimes he was late in payment but offered no justification or reason why he had paid lately.

...........omissis...........

19. That the interpellants refer to various judgements on the matter from which it clearly emerges that the necessary elements in order that a request for taking back of possession in case of delay succeeds. These are:

(a) The calling.

The law does not require that the calling be in writing and this was confirmed in the judgement given by the Court of Appeal, in the cause in the names Mary Borg vs John Muscat, on the 9th March 1994.

(b) The Justifications.

In the judgement given by this Board on the 4th March 2013, in the cause Camilleri vs Falzon, decided on the 4th March 2013, whereby the Board stated ‘Now as upheld by jurisprudence in similar cases, the Board should not satisfy itself only by the said accumulated delay, but should examine also the reasons which can justify the delay of the lessee’.

...........omissis...........

(c) The renunciation.

The respondent Albert Pace, in his evidence states that ‘following the death of Dr Leslie Grech I started to pay his son and he always accepted the rent’. This is the case but it is to be stated that this rent was always accepted without prejudice to the pending lawsuit’.

20. That jurisprudence is clear as regards the fact that the cause based on delay is not waived due to the acceptance of the rent.

‘Although the lessor during the action for eviction of the lessee due to delay in payment of the rents receives any payment of rent even in advance, this not necessarily imply the renunciation of the pending action for eviction’.

21. ...........omissis...........

22. ...........omissis...........

23. That the interpellants cannot understand how the Board took this attitude and interpreted the law in the sense that the acceptance of a late payment without reservation before the commencement of procedures implies a renunciation to the cause of delay.

...........omissis...........

24. Thus, the interpellants uphold that the proof of delay of the respondents in the sense that: (a) there were the callings required by law and the term uselessly passed, (b) there was no excuse or justification on the part of the respondents in virtue of which this Board could use its discretion in favour of the lessee and (c) there was no renunciation on the part of the interpellants for the violation of by the respondents of the obligation to pay the rent punctually on the date due.

25. Thus, the interpellants respectfully pray that this Honourable Court confirm the judgement challenged and that of the 9th June 2010, as demanded in this application.

With costs of both instances against the respondents.

Respondents: (a) Albert Pace, 234, Flat 2, Triq Sant’Ursula, Valletta.

(b) Grace Pace, 234, Flat 2, Triq Sant’Ursula, Valletta.

The Appeal Application in the names Grech Advocate Leslie pro et noe vs Pace Albert et, application number 54/08 GG, has been deferred for hearing to the 1st July 2015, at 9.00 a.m.

Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD

For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree given by the First Hall Civil Court, on the 21st May 2015, in the records of the Sworn Application, in the names F.A. Limited vs Photo Play Malta Limited et, application number 451/12 JZM, 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 F.A. Limited (C 38734) vs Photo Play Malta Limited (C 43338) and Charles Baldacchino (ID 344569M) and Giuseppe Mosciaro (Italian Identity Card AK 5673580), and by a decree of the 26th January 2015, Dr Martin Fenech and Legal Procurator Nicholette Aquilina were appointed as Curators to represent the absent Charles Baldacchino, on the 8th May 2012, the applicants F.A. Limited asked the defendants to state why this Honourable Court should not:

1. Declare and decide that the defendants or either of whom were in delay in the payments to the plaintiff company, and thus Clauses 12.1 and 12.2 of the contract of lease of the 18th March 2009, are to come into force and the contract is to be considered terminated, declare and decide that the defendants or either of whom are responsible for the debt due to the plaintiff company in the amount of €5,433.65, and uphold the other demands in the application.

With costs and commercial interests according to law till the date of effective payment against the defendants summoned so that a reference to their evidence be made.

Defendants: (1) Photo Play Malta Ltd, Casa Italia, Labour Road, Żabbar.

The Sworn Application in the names F.A. Limited vs Photo Play Malta Limited et, application number 451/12 JZM, has been deferred for hearing to Thursday, 25th June 2015, at 9.00 a.m.

Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD

For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals

By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal, of the 11th May 2015, 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).

360 Food Imports Limited (C 46590), of Mdina Road, Żebbuġ, filed a Claim, on the 29th April 2014, whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Mario Degabriele of 143, Our Lady of Sorrows Street, Pietà,to pay the plaintiff company the sum of €302.92, which amount is due to the plaintiff company.

With costs and legal interests.

The case (Claim Number 276/14KPS) is deferred for the 16th June 2015 at 12.30 p.m.

Alexandra Debattista

For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals

By a decree of the Court of Magistrates (Malta) of the 27th April 2015, the publication of the following extract was ordered for the purpose of service to the defendant Eucharist Bajada in terms of Article 187 (3) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12).

John Mary Casha (ID 241457M), of 11, St Joseph Street, Birkirkara,filed a Claim on the 20th February 2015, whereby he asked the Court to condemn Eucharist Bajada (ID 375069M), of 47, Casa Maria, Sir Michelangelo Refalo Avenue, Balzan, to pay the plaintiff the sum of €5,000 which amount is due to the plaintiff.

With costs and interest.

The case (Notice Number 61/15FDP) is deferred for the 22nd June 2015 at 9.00 a.m.

Alexandra Debattista

For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals

By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal, of the 25th May 2015, 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), of Fra Diego Street, Marsa MRS 1501, filed a Claim on the 18th March 2015, whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Patera Vincenzo (Italian Passport AM0874640), of 445, Triq D’Argens, Gżira, to pay the plaintiff company the sum of €429.58, which amount is due to the plaintiff company.

With costs and legal interests.

The case (Claim Number 190/15KPS) is deferred for the 16th June 2015 at 12.30 p.m.

Alexandra Debattista

For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals

By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal, of the 11th May 2015, 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), in her own name and for and on behalf of Mobisle Communications Limited (C 24655), of Fra Diego Street, Marsa MRS 1501, filed a Claim on the 16th April 2015, whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Fowler Paul Vincent (ID 66258A), of L-Ambjent, Blokk C, Flat 1, Telgħet ix-Xemxija, San Pawl il-Baħar,to pay the plaintiff company the sum of €1,560.87 which amount is due to the plaintiff company.

With costs and legal interests.

The case (Claim Number 305/15KPS) is deferred for the 16th June 2015 at 12.30 p.m.

Alexandra Debattista

For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree given on the 3rd June 2015, by the First Hall Civil Court, in the records of the Sworn Application, in the names Floriana Football Club vs Stephen Vaughan, application number 417/15 JPG, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the defendants 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 Floriana Football Club vs Stephen Vaughan, holder of English Passport number 105062447 and Stephen James Vaughan, holder of English Passport number 110008249, on the 6th May 2015, the applicant Floriana Football Club respectfully pleaded and asked this Honourable Court saving any order, provision and necessary declaration:

1. To declare that the defendants or either of whom failed in whole or/in part to honour the obligations assumed by them or him assumed in regard to Floriana Football Club, by failing to pay in part or in whole the salaries, accommodation or other expenses related to players and other employees, according to the contract dated 13th August 2012 and/or contracts/other obligations according to the case, and uphold the other demands in the application.

With costs and further commercial interests till the date of effective payment against the defendants or either of whom from now summoned so that a reference to their evidence be made.

Notify: Stephen Vaughan, Parksos Court, Flat 6, Triq Mater Boni Consigli, Fgura.

Stephen James Vaughan, Parksos Court, Flat 6, Triq Mater Boni Consigli, Fgura.

The Sworn Application in the names Floriana Football Club vs Stephen Vaughan et, application number 417/15 JPG, has been deferred for hearing to the 1st July 2015, at 11.30 a.m.

Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD

For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree given on the 28th May 2015, by the Rent Regulation Board, in the records of the Sworn Application, in the names Plaza Centres plc (C 564) vs Candynavia Limited (C 60481), application number 38/15 GG, 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 Rent Regulation Board, in the names Plaza Centres plc (C 564) vs Candynavia Limited (C 60481), on the 16th April 2015, the company Plaza Centres plc asked this Honourable Board:

(a) To uphold the demand so that this application be heard by special summary proceedings without passing to a hearing of the cause in terms of Article 16A of Cap. 69 of the Laws of Malta, declare that the lease between Plaza Centres plc and Candynavia Limited is terminated, uphold the other demands in the application amongst which the payment of €29,647.29 representing rent and common area and building maintenance costs.

Respondent: No. 5, Block 13, Xatt il-Palm, Baħar iċ-Ċagħaq, Naxxar NXR 5181.

Sterling Building, Enrico Mizzi, Gżira GZR 1481; and

Level Zero (0), Shop No. 3, Plaza Shopping Centre, Bisazza Street, Sliema SLM 1640.

Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD

For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals

By a decree of the Court of Magistrates (Malta) of the 27th April 2015, 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), of Fra Diego Street, Marsa, filed a Claim, on the 23rd January 2015, whereby they asked the Court to condemn Hjalte Anders (Passport 52989014SE), of Carantino Court, Flat 10, Triq Giacint Tua, Gżira, to pay the plaintiff company the sum of €9,085.83 which amount is due to the plaintiff company.

With costs and interests.

The case (Notice Number 31/15FDP) is deferred for the 22nd June 2015 at 9.00 a.m.

Alexandra Debattista

For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree given on the 4th May 2015, by the Rent Regulation Board, in the records of the Application, in the names Mifsud Michael et vs Zarb Alfred et, application number 126/15 GG, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent in terms of the respondent Catherine Zarb in terms of Article 187 (3) et. seq. of Cap. 12.

By means of an Application filed in the Rent Regulation Board, in the names Michael (ID 737249M) and Mary Rita (ID 291459M) spouses Mifsud vs Alfred (ID 810058M) and Catherine (ID 714358M) spouses Zarb, on the 16th February 2015, the applicants Michael and Mary Rita, spouses Mifsud, asked this Honourable Court: (1) in the first place to hear and decide this dispute without proceeding to a hearing in virtue of Article 16A of Cap. 69 of the Laws of Malta, (2) in the second place if necessary saving the dissolution of the title of lease grant permission to the applicants to take possession of the premises or rather bar number thirty five (35), Triq Belvedere, Gżira, from the respondents, and uphold the other demands in the application.

With costs against the respondents summoned so that a reference to their evidence be made.

Respondent: 34, Triq Viani, Sliema.

The Application in the names Mifsud Michael et vs Zarb Alfred et, application number 16/15 GG, has been deferred to the 15th June 2015, at 9.00 a.m.

ADV. FRANK PORTELLI, LLD

For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree given, by the First Hall Civil Court, on the 8th June 2015, in the records of the judicial letter number 456/2014, dated 18th November 2014, filed, against ‘Aveo Shipping Limited’ (C 36067) represented by its sole director, i.e. the company named Fenlex Corporate Services Ltd, 85, St John Street, Valletta, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent company ‘Aveo Shipping Limited, in terms of Article 187(3) et seq. of Cap. 12.

In the First Hall Civil Court, today 18th November 2014

To: Aveo Shipping Limited (C 36067) legally represented by its sole director i.e. the company named Fenlex Corporate Services Ltd, 85, St. John Street, Valletta.

By the present, the Attorney General, as the receiving agency for the purposes of (CE) Regulation Num. 1393/2007, of the European Parliament and Council of the 13th November 2007, regarding service in Member States of judicial and extra-judicial documents in civil and commercial matters documents (service of documents) following a request of the Greek sending agency, whilst notifying you with the documents hereby annexed inform you that by the use of the Form hereby attached and marked Doc ‘A’ you can refute to accept the document if it is not in writing or does not have a translation in one of the languages that you understand or one of the official languages of the place where the service or communication is being made. If you wish to exercise this right you have to refuse to accept the document at the moment that service is made and you have to do this with the person who delivers the document to you or by sending it back at the address which appears hereunder within one week, and declare that you are refusing to accept it.

This service is being made in terms of Article 187(4) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta).

So much so that you may know how to regulate yourselves.

Interpellant: The Attorney General, The Palace, Valletta.

ADV. FRANK PORTELLI, LLD

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals