Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1520224
12 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 5 MAY 2024 LETTERS & LAW Letters to the Editor Law Report Popular Party is not far-right REFERENCE is made to your article, entitled 'The familiar and unexpected local council candidates announced so far' published on the MaltaToday website on 27 April. We strongly object to your character- isation of Partit Popolari as 'far-right', a description that is completely without basis. Partit Popolari's principles and its electoral programmes have always been moderate and respectful of the rights of every individual. The upholding of the dignity of every human is enshrined in the party's stat- ute as the first among its fundamental principles. With regard to policies, nei- ther its stance on the need for greater democracy and decentralisation locally, nor its proposal to reform the EU on the basis of the subsidiarity principle, nor its moderate and reasonable stance on migration and asylum issues nor any other policy it has proposed would justify such a classification. The use of such a term therefore not only misinforms your readers but also can be considered to be defamatory, as it wrongly depicts the party as being extremist. It is also untrue that the party's lead- er, Paul Salomone, was ever a member of Imperium Europa, although he was a guest at four events organised by them, at a time when Partit Popolari had not yet been founded, and after having successfully defended himself in court against an attempt by the government to stifle free speech with regard to the immigration issue. Antoine Sciberras Secretary General Popular Party Birkirkara Bringing order to Valletta's cacophony VALLETTA has come a very long way from the dead city it was in my youth. Back then, after the shops closed at 7pm, the streets of the capital simply fell silent and only a handful of restaurants re- mained open. Today, the capital is completely unrecognisable. I believe it is a good thing that restaurants and bars remain open for long, offering theatre and concert goers options to enjoy an ex- tended stay in the capital. However, as often happens we've gone from one extreme to another. Dining outdoors is a good thing, espe- cially in a country where the climate is favourable for most of the year. But unless restaurants and bars adhere to clear delineations given to them by the public authorities for putting out tables and chairs, the streets will simply turn into an obsta- cle course for pedestrians, as some are today. Additionally, there should be more control on the type and sound level of the music played outdoors by some of these establishments. In many instances, there is a ca- cophony of sound that drowns out speech and simply hurts the ears not to mention the discomfort residents have to endure when music continues blaring outdoors deep into the night. A vibrant capital city at night is beautiful but vibrancy should not turn into the law of the jungle and outright cacophony. Chris Frendo Gżira AN agreement entered into by the major- ity shareholder of a company may have no bearing on the company. This was held in the Court of Appeal on 25 April 2024 in Cedric Mifsud in the name and in representation of the foreign company Adria Yachting NV vs Stephen Christo- pher Schlosser. The Court of Appeal was presided over by the Chief Justice and judges Christian Falzon Scerri and Josette Demicoli. The Defendant, Schlosser appealed from a judgment which dismissed a plea with regard to a Novation Agree- ment in which it dealt with a number of issues that regulated the relationship between Altra Foundation and the De- fendant. One of these issues was with regard to the revocation and termina- tion of the use of a vessel by the name of SY Adria 1934. The Defendant held that this agreement gave jurisdiction to Zurich, Switzerland when there was a dispute. The First Court pointed out that the Plaintiff filed the action in order for the Defendant to return the vessel SY Adria and also asked for the liquida- tion of damages. The Defendant pleaded lack of juris- diction, since the Novation Agreement signed in April 2018 mentioned that the correct forum would be Zurich. The First Court held that the nova- tion agreement dealt with debts be- tween the parties, however, it makes no reference to the vessel. The action dealt with who is the owner of the ves- sel. The Plaintiff argues that it is the owner of the vessel. The ship-owning company was not a party to the nova- tion agreement. The Court looked at Article 742(1) (c) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure which states that the courts in Malta have jurisdiction over any action concerning "any person, in matters relating to property situated or existing in Malta". In fact, the vessel in question was arrested in Malta and was in Maltese territorial waters. The Court quoted from Philip Manduca noe vs Mark Chetcuti et noe decided by the Commercial Court on 25 February 1993. The Court held in this judgment that the Maltese Courts have jurisdic- tion to hear a case if the matter relates to property that is situated in Malta. The case before the First Court dealt with the ownership of a vessel which was found in Malta's territorial water. Therefore, the principal issue is the ownership of the vessel and the ancil- lary issue is damages. The First Court therefore turned down the plea. In the Defendant's appeal, he argued that the novation agreement did not deal with debts but referred to the ownership of the vessel. The agree- ment makes reference to previous agreements, however, the novation agreement extinguished these other agreements. The Plaintiff argued that the novation agreement was signed by a different company and not the Plaintiff com- pany. And the ownership of the vessel was not mentioned in this agreement. The Court of Appeal referred to Arti- cle 1180 of the Civil Code which states that novation must not be presumed but it must be clearly shown in an agreement. The Court of Appeal held that the major obstacle the Defendant faces is that the Plaintiff company is not a party to the novation agreement. The parties to the novation agreement are Altra Foundation and the Defendant. The Plaintiff company is claiming that it is the owner of the vessel and presented prima facie evidence to show it is the owner such as certification documents. Altra Foundation is the majority shareholder of the Plaintiff company; however, it does not mean that it can enter into an agreement it has shares in. Both companies have a distinct juridical personality. Therefore, one company cannot bind the other company unless such com- pany is a party to that agreement. This is outlined in Article 19 of Schedule 2 of the Civil Code. The novation agree- ment does not show that the Founda- tion was binding the Plaintiff company. The Court of Appeal then moved to reject the appeal. Shareholder is distinct from the company LAW REPORT MALCOLM MIFSUD Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates