Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1522634
16 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 16 JUNE 2024 LETTERS & LAW Letters to the Editor Law Report Change in pills confuse elderly MY elderly mother suffers from multi- ple conditions that require her to take several medications, which she sourc- es from the Pharmacy of Your Choice system. However, it is increasingly be- coming confusing for her because the branding of the pills keeps changing. This may seem a minor issue to most but for an 80-year-old person who has taken time to associate a particular box of pills with a certain condition to suddenly have the brand changed is very confusing. Additionally, there have been situations when the medi- cation given to her by POYC does not correspond to that prescribed by the doctor because the government ser- vice would have substituted the med- icine with a generic one. Although, the health impacts of the medicine are supposed to be the same, my mother insists the generics provided by the POYC seem to be less effective at times and in other instances cause side effects. She complains that after her body adjusts to the new medica- tion, a period that sometimes lasts months, this is changed once more thus perpetuating the cycle of discom- fort. I am not a doctor or a pharmacist but my appeal to the authorities is to ensure that whenever new medicine is sourced they should ensure it is effec- tive and patients should be provided with clear information to be able to link the new brand with their respec- tive ailment. Additionally, doctors who prescribe medicines for patients to source on the public health service should be aware of what medicines are being provided to avoid have a prescription that cites one brand and a medicine box that carries a different brand name. I believe this will help re- duce anxiety, especially among elderly patients. D. Theuma Pietà Paceville bridge is a hazard ACCORDING to Infrastructure Malta the structural integrity of the Pace- ville-Swieqi bridge over which large volumes of traffic pass daily is sound. The fact that parts of the concrete roofing of the tunnel dropped off ap- pears to be of no concern. It is up to engineers to determine whether the bridge structure is safe but in my eyes, falling concrete bits are definitely not safe for pedestrians and vehicles who pass beneath the bridge. Just imagine a piece of concrete like that which fell last week hit someone on the head; or smashed the windscreen of car passing below. We would be reading a different story by now. I know the bridge will eventually be removed as part of the Swieqi-Paceville junction project but until the plans come to fruition, which could be years, Infrastructure Malta is obliged to ensure pedestrian and ve- hicular safety of those passing through the tunnel. What are we waiting for; a tragedy to happen before someone smells the coffee and realises that the situation is dangerous? M. Muscat St Julian's A victim of a scam cannot use the scam as a defence against a claim to pay debts. This was held by the First Hall of the Civil Court on 12 June 2024 in lawyer Cedric Mifsud on behalf of foreign com- pany Luise Associates Srl vs the ship MY Queen Mavia. The Court was presided over by Judge Miriam Hayman. In his application, Cedric Mifsud ex- plained that Luise Associates Srl is an Italian company which offers maritime services. In 2017, the Italian company gave agency services to MT Queen Ma- via, a pleasure yacht registered in the Marshall Islands. The Company issued five invoices, which in total amount to €41,551.66. These invoices were accept- ed but never paid. The Company asked the court to order the defendant vessel to pay the claim. The vessel explained in its statement of defence that the invoices add up to €38,115.06 and this sum was paid ac- cording to the instructions given by the company. The case focused on the fact that the Plaintiff company did not receive pay- ment in its bank account. The Defend- ant claimed that payment was made. It resulted that the Defendant was subject to an internet scam called phishing. The Defendant argued that it was up to the Plaintiff Company to guarantee that its emails were safe. The Plaintiff argued that the Defendant was negligent when it made payment. The Court looked up the term "phish- ing" and according to the Oxford Dic- tionary it meant "the fraudulent practice of sending emails or other messages pur- porting to be from reputable companies in order to induce individuals to reveal personal information, such as passwords and credit cards number." From the evidence produced by the CEO of the Plaintiff Company, the company handled the security of its in- ternet systems and IT infrastructure. From 2016 the Plaintiff Company used a Google Cloud platform to avoid these phishing attacks. From 2017 it gave warnings against phishing in its emails, since it was common in the yachting in- dustry. The warning was a precaution and not because there was an attack nor was it hacked. Google had a two layered verification system and therefore, one of the best security systems. The Plaintiff Company presented copies of the emails the captain of the vessel with the bank details he had used to transfer the funds. Another witness of the Plaintiff Com- pany explained that with the invoices there were the bank details where the payment had to be affected. The com- pany had sent several reminders for the Defendant to pay the invoices. Then he received a proof of payment from the captain that the payment was affect- ed. This was sent to the KBC Bank NV, Brussels instead to Deutsche Bank Na- poli. Then the captain of the vessel sent the emails it had acted on and it was clear that these emails were not sent by the Plaintiff company. The emails did not contain any invoices but only bank details. The captain testified that he contact- ed the agents of the yacht to put their minds at rest that they were to pay. He had recommended that the invoices be paid.He produced emails showing that payment should be made to a differ- ent bank account. The Plaintiff Com- pany had threatened to institute legal action if payment was not made. The owner of the yacht authorised payment of €38,115.06. He said that there was no reason to think that the email did not come from the Plaintiff Company. He insisted that he paid in good faith. He knew of the hacking warning in the email he received from the Plaintiff Company. A witness from the yacht owning com- pany, said he had vetted the invoices. He had discussed these invoices with the captain of the yacht. They received an email from the Plaintiff Company to send the payment to a different bank account from those indicated in the in- voices. In January 2018, the yacht was arrested, since the Plaintiff company held that it did not receive the payment. The Court quoted from Judge Philip Sciberras's book, 'L-Alfabett tal-Kodici Civili Vol. P-Q'. Here for a person to be freed from a debt is upon payment and it is up to this person to prove payment to the creditor. Payment must be made to the person who had the right to re- ceive it. The Defendant Company pleaded it had paid the debt. As such the Defend- ant had accepted the debt and therefore the debt was uncontested. It claimed that payment was made according to the instructions of the Plaintiff Company. The Court pointed out that the Plain- tiff Company did send warnings and therefore, the Defendant was aware of the dangers of Phishing. The Court held that it was up to the debtor to show it was diligent towards the creditor and fulfilled its obligations. In this case, in order to avoid legal action, the Defend- ant hurried to make payment, and did not assure itself that did not pay to the correct account. The Court then moved to uphold the Plaintiff Company's claim and order the Defendant to pay €41,551.66. Scam victims are bound to be diligent LAW REPORT MALCOLM MIFSUD Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates