Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1517228
12 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 10 MARCH 2024 LETTERS & LAW Letters to the Editor Law Report Shocking that psychiatrist's warning was ignored A psychiatrist testifying in court said that he had informed police in 2012 that a man who had access to several shotguns at the time posed "a significant danger to the public". Despite this warning, four years later in 2016, this man was able to successfully apply for a shotgun licence. On New Year's Day 2024, this man shot and killed another man in Rabat. Nearly two months after the murder, the Police Commissioner revoked the man's shotgun licence. This is shocking to me. How could this man have been trusted to possess shotguns and given a licence when a psychiatrist had previously flagged serious concerns? I am not privy to the laws that regulate gun possession in Malta but this case should open our eyes to the need for better monitoring systems before licences are is- sued by the police. If a psychiatrist's warn- ing went unheeded, or ignored, I believe there is a problem. M. Mamo Birkirkara Melita sports package price increase should be investigated MELITA will be increasing the price of its sports package subscription to €7.99 a month from €5.99 from 1 April. The company claims it is doing so because of rising costs. I cannot dispute their claim but I do believe the consumer affairs au- thority and the communications authority should investigate whether a 33% increase in price is entirely justified. After all, Mel- ita is a dominant company in the com- munications market and with only two companies offering such a sports package, consumers have very little choice. But what irked me more was the email Melita sent its subscribers in which it graciously informed us that the new price is 'still just a fraction of what you'd typically pay for top-notch sports content in other countries'. It continued by telling us that abroad sport packages could start from €20 per month. Now, if my wage is similar to wages abroad I may not be complaining but it is not and I invite Melita to stuff their stupid explanation up their nether region. The company should act more re- sponsibly but the authorities must ensure that companies like Melita do not abuse from their dominance. T. Muscat Naxxar Kudos to the army KUDOS to the Armed Forces of Mal- ta for the recent deployment of four soldiers with the Frontex mission on the Greek borders. The four officers deserve respect for accepting to be part of this mission. Within its limitations, Malta should do more to integrate it- self in the EU's defence and security policy in the coming years. It is in the interest of our safety and security as a country that we not only have an army that is professional but that the EU develops its military and defence capa- bilities to be well positioned to defend any member state from adversaries. Albert Fenech Swieqi A company which is owed money from a company which has been struck off the Companies Register may ask the Court to revive the company in order to proceed against it. This was held in a judgment delivered before the Civil Court (Commercial Section) in GBCom Limited vs Com- panies Registrar on 1 March 2024. Mr Justice Ian Spiteri Bailey presided over the Court. The Company asked the court in its application for Afegra Finance Lim- ited to be reinstated in the register of companies in terms of Article 325(4) of the Companies Act after it was struck off the register. Afegra is a defendant in a court action that GBCom institut- ed. GBCom is asking the court to order Afegra and other companies to pay it USD500,000. In June 2021, Afegra was removed from the register of compa- nies since it was considered as defunct. GBCom has an interest to revive the company, since it owes a larger sum than mentioned above. The Registrar of Companies filed a statement of defence and explained that Afegra was registered in March 2010. Furthermore, the company failed to file the annual returns as per the Companies Act. The last annual return was filed in 2015 with regard to the annual return of 2011. The financial statements were of 2018. The compa- ny was informed of its failings and that the company was to be struck off. No reply was received and therefore the Registrar had no option but to proceed with the striking off. The Registrar ex- plained further to the Court that it has no control over how companies act and that how they comply with the regula- tions. It emphasised that the compa- ny, once back on the Registry, should comply with filing all the missing doc- uments and therefore did not object to the company being revived. The Court agreed with the Registrar with the fact that the request to revive the company should have been in terms of Regulation 9 (4) of the Register of Beneficial Owners Regulation (Subsid- iary Legislation 386.19) and not under Article 325(4) of the Companies Act. Irrespective of this, the effect was still to revive the company and therefore the action was still valid. The Court held that it would not make sense to reject the action only to have it filed again under the correct article of law. The Court then quoted Article 9(4) of the Companies Act (Register of Benefi- cial Owners) Regulations: "If any member or creditor of the company, or any other person who appears to the Court to have an inter- est feels aggrieved by the fact that the name of the company has been struck off the register by virtue of the provi- sions of this regulation, the Court on an application made by the member or creditor or such other person before the expiration of five years from the publication of the notice of the strik- ing off provided for in sub-regulations (2) and (3) may, if satisfied that it is proper that the name of the company be restored to the register, order that such name be restored to the register, and up on an official copy of the order being delivered by the Registrar of the Courts to the Registrar for registration, the company shall be deemed to have continued in existence as if its name had not been struck off; and the Court may by its order give such directions and make such provisions as seem fit for placing the company and all other persons in the same position as nearly as may be as if the name of the compa- ny had not been struck off. The Regis- trar shall forthwith proceed to publish a notice in the Gazette or on a website maintained by the Registrar and in a daily newspaper circulating wholly or mainly in Malta that the name of the company has been restored to the reg- ister." The Court pointed out the application was filed within five years and that the applicant company proved that it has a claim against Afegra. The Court agreed with the Registrar that it took the cor- rect steps to strike off the company, however upheld the request to revive Afegra on condition that the applicant company should update the Registrar of the progress of the claim it has. The Court then moved to uphold the request and ordered that the company be revived within fifteen days. A creditor may ask a company to be revived LAW REPORT MALCOLM MIFSUD Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates