MediaToday Newspapers Latest Editions

A warrant of prohibitory injunction cannot be issued if the action it is being asked to stop has already taken place. This was decided in a decree delivered on 22 April 2025 by Mr Justice Ian Spi- teri Bailey in John Attard vs Steve Agius et. The Applicant filed a warrant of pro- hibitory injunction against Identity Mal- ta, the Permanent Secretary of the Min- istry for Internal Affairs and Wasteserv Malta Ltd. He asked the court to order the defendant not to transfer or rede- ploy him from Identity Malta to Was- teserv Limited. Attard, the Applicant explained that he was employed with Identity Malta in June 2016. He was re- sponsible for internal auditing which meant that disciplinary action was taken against other staff members following his investigations. He is 58 years old, and obtained a Light Passenger Transport Service Opera- tor licence which would allow him to work after he starts his pension. He is also a director of a company, which the CEO of Identity Malta (IM) is aware of. Again, this is part of his plan for when he leaves IM on pension. In January 2025, he wrote to the CEO informing him that he would need to apply for work permits of third country nationals. The CEO of IM referred this request to the Compli- ance Unit for their review. On 10 March 2025, the CEO of Was- teserv Malta Limited informed the Ap- plicant that there were rumours that he was to be seconded to Wasteserv. This was confirmed officially on 1 April 2025. No official reason was given for this move. The Applicant blamed the fact that he requested to start process- ing work permits and therefore, it could have been interpreted as a conflict of interest. The Applicant insisted that he did not process any applications for work permits and does not work at the work permit section of IM. A formal let- ter outlining that the Applicant did have a conflict of interest and therefore was being deployed to Wasteserv. Attard claims that this deployment is contrary to law and the Manuel on Re- sourcing Policies and Procedures issued by the government and the Public Ad- ministration Act. The Defendants did file a statement of defence against the injunction in which it was stated that the Applicant had been previously deployed to ARMS in 2018 and returned to IM a few months later. The Defendants argued that the re- quest was not for him to apply for work permits after his retirement but to do so immediately. The company where the Applicant is a director had been oper- ating since 2023 and offers taxi services. He even asked for information on pend- ing applications. It is for this reason that the Applicant is being deployed to a government agency where he will not have a conflict of interest. The Defend- ants challenged that a redeployment is contrary to law. The Defendants also challenged wheth- er the Applicant has a prima facie right in terms of Article 873(2) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure. The Applicant is suggesting that there is no conflict of interest, but it is the govern- ment that has to address the issue of the conflict of interest of its employees. The Applicant did not bring any evidence that if he is deployed to Wasteserv then there is no remedy. The Defendants ar- gued that the Applicant can file a judi- cial review action. Mr Justice Spiteri Bailey pointed at the articles of law which are relevant to the warrant. These are Article 873(1) and (2) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (COCP). There are two ele- ments to the warrant of prohibitory in- junction. The first the warrant is to pro- tect the rights of the claimant and that this must be proved prima facie. The Court quoted from Grech pro et noe vs Manfre decided on 14 July 1988 where the court then held that these elements are object and not subjective and do not depend on the judge's discretion. Therefore, when the government is involved, there are two additional ele- ments. These are that the action intend- ed to be stopped will take place and that the prejudice that will take place the warrant will be a unproportionate re- action. These elements must all exist. If the warrant is upheld, it does not mean that the right exists because a court ac- tion will have to follow. The Court further considered that the Applicant's request is clear in that he is asking to court to stop to his redeploy- ment. This is because the decision has been taken. The decision was taken after the circumstances were referred to the Conflicts of Interest Committee. There- fore, the Court cannot stop something that has already taken place. The Con- flicts of Interest Committee had taken its decision. The Applicant at this stage can take other measures with regard to a decision taken. In fact, the Applicant has a wide range of remedies before him to contest the decision taken. The Court then turned down the re- quest for a warrant of prohibitory in- junction. LAW Law Report A court cannot stop an action which has already taken place LAW REPORT MALCOLM MIFSUD Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates MALCOLM MIFSUD Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates The Defendants argued that the request was not for him to apply for work permits after his retirement but to do so immediately. maltatoday | SUNDAY • 27 APRIL 2025 8 The applicant was transferred out of Identity Malta (later to become Identità) because of a conflict of interest (File photo).

• Cover