Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1535957
THE recently announced Community Support Scheme is yet another endorse- ment of government's commitment to fund and assist localities and communi- ties with environmental, cultural and res- toration initiatives. Aimed at reaching out to those local- ities—19 in all—that are not eligible to benefit from funds allocated under the European Union's Leader Programme, this national scheme ensures no one is left out. The €800,000 fund will help sustain dedicated local NGOs in their noble, everyday work in their communities. Whether formal and nonprofit or infor- mal, grassroots associations and NGOs play a crucial role in civil society. Known as the 'third sector', they make significant contributions to the welfare, integration and solidarity process among residents within their localities. Their work at grassroots level is based on a sharp and sensitive awareness of the needs and as- pirations of the communities they keep in direct and constant contact with. Incredibly, there are no less than 900 voluntary organisations which operate within these 19 communities and which will have, through these funds, the op- portunity to further excel in their cultural and environmental projects and initia- tives. Projects such as restoration works on paintings and exhibition halls, activi- ties promoting different cultural aspects of our towns and villages, and embellish- ing the environment with roof gardens and green areas will now receive funding to ensure successful implementation. Irrespective of where they are based, we will, as a government, have the voluntary groups' back in the ongoing process of offering a better quality of life for their communities. Such space and concrete support are meant to ensure that the ben- efits are not reserved to just rural areas but will be spread out in a more inclusive and effective manner. The Leader Programme has, over the years, gone a long way towards success- fully and innovatively implementing de- velopment projects in the rural areas of our islands. The new scheme addresses the problems and obstacles that volun- tary organisations—those registered with the Commissioner for Voluntary Organi- sations—local and regional councils, inel- igible for other funds, face. Under the new scheme, funds will now be available to 19 localities: Birkirkara, Bormla, Tarxien, Valletta, Birgu, Marsa, Paola, Pembroke, St Julian's, San Ġwann, Santa Venera, Pietà, Sliema and Ta' Xbiex. Undoubtedly, this is another much-re- quired and rational measure that will make a real difference in the lives of peo- ple and their families within their com- munities. I am deeply grateful for the relentless support and professional advice of both Mauro Pace Parascandolo, chief execu- tive of the Malta Council for the Volun- tary Sector (MCVS), and Roderick Zerafa, chief executive of Servizzi Ewropej f'Mal- ta (SEM). It is no understatement to say that our combined strategy is aimed primarily at leaving no one out, making sure all com- munities in Malta and Gozo can share in the larger, inclusive project of providing not only easy access to finance but also a role to play in the formation of a more just and purposeful Maltese society. NEW pleas cannot be raised in an appeal of any of the parties. This was held in Sav- iour Camilleri vs Noel Borg, a judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal on 16 May 2025. The court was presided by Mr Justice Lawrence Mintoff. An appeal was lodged by Camilleri (the Plaintiff), while a cross appeal was lodged by Borg (the Defendant). The Magistrates Court had ordered the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff €4,720, which was a little less than the Plaintiff claimed. The Plaintiff had sued the Defendant for unpaid professional fees after the for- mer was engaged to prepare designs for a shop. The original claim was €5,900. The Defendant objected to this claim stating that the work was not carried out and the amount is exaggerated. The Defendant filed a counter-claim asking for damages which amounted to €5,082. The Magistrates' Court in its judgment explained that it was not contested that the Plaintiff was engaged to give services and the agreed amount was €7,700. The Plaintiff argued that he was engaged to provide a design of a shop, while the De- fendant argued that it was a turnkey pro- ject. The Defendant held that he was not given a copy of the designs. The Magis- trates Court held that although there were two opposing versions, it could decide the case. The court quoted from Emanuel Ciantar vs David Curmi noe, decided on 28 April 2003 before the First Hall of the Civil Court, which held that when there is conflicting evidence the court must de- cide on the balance of probability. There is no need for the court to decide the case on certainty. In another judgment, Maria Xuereb et vs Clement Gauci et, decided on 24 March 2004, the Court of Appeal ruled that it could decide a case when there is conflicting evidence, on the basis as to whether there is any corroborating evi- dence. Thus, the court can decide wheth- er one version is more credible than the other. As to this particular case, the Magistrates Court did not agree that the assignment was a turnkey project because this was not mentioned in the Defendant's affidavit. Secondly, a turnkey project would entail that the contractor would carry out all the works and at the end give the keys to the owner. The amount agreed of €7,700 plus VAT could never have covered all the works. The Magistrates Court also disagreed with the Plaintiff who said that his task was limited to the design of the shop. The Parties had exchanged notes where the Plaintiff was to carry out supervision of the works. The Court decided that all ser- vices were provided apart from the super- vision. The Defendant argued that he did not have copies of the designs, but he was at the same time approving the works. In fact, he had sent a contractor to the Plain- tiff to obtain a copy of the plans. As to the plea that the sum sought was exaggerated, the court held that this sum was agreed. Article 993 of the Civil Code states that contracts should be executed in good faith. As such the court concluded that the amount that the Plaintiff should be awarded was €4,720. The Plaintiff appealed the judgment be- cause it did not include the interest due that should be added to the main claim. The Defendant also filed a cross appeal. As to the interest, the Plaintiff argued that this should start from the date of the invoice. However, the Magistrates Court ordered that interest should start from the date of the judgment. As to the Defendant's cross appeal, the Defendant held that the Plaintiff did not fulfil his obligations. The Plaintiff point- ed out that this was not raised in the case. The Court of Appeal agreed. The Court of Appeal held that no new arguments could be made that were not part of the pleas filed in the beginning of the case. The Court of Appeal rejected both ap- peals. OPINION & LAW Law Report Defendant cannot raise new pleas in appeal stage LAW REPORT MALCOLM MIFSUD Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates MALCOLM MIFSUD Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates Whether formal and nonprofit or informal, grassroots associations and NGOs play a crucial role in civil society. maltatoday | SUNDAY • 1 JUNE 2025 12 Julia Farrugia Leaving no one out Julia Farrugia is minister for inclusion and the voluntary sector