Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1541881
2 maltatoday | WEDNESDAY • 10 DECEMBER 2025 NEWS CONTINUES FROM PAGE 1 The case, decided on Friday, concerns Karen Zammit South- ernwood, who successfully sued Showshappening Limited after buying four tickets for the Ed Sheeran concert held in Ta' Qali in 2024. The claimant had purchased four "Seated B – Z4" tickets on 10 November 2023 for a total of €856.00, which included €800 for the tickets (at €200 each) and a €56.00 booking fee. Southernwood initiated pro- ceedings because the seats al- located did not correspond to the advertised seating plan. She complained that the stand desig- nated as Z4 was portrayed on the original plan as being "almost mid-way through the venue," but was actually placed "at the far end of the venue". In corre- spondence dated 27 June 2024, she described the method of selling the tickets as "deceitful," stating that had she known the true placement, she would have "simply stayed home". The Consumer Claims Tri- bunal accepted the consumer's complaint, finding she had rea- son for her demand and was entitled to compensation. On 13 November 2024, the tribunal partially upheld the claim, or- dering Showshappening Limited to pay the claimant €656.00, plus interest and costs. Showshap- pening Limited failed to submit a response or send a representa- tive to the Tribunal hearing, de- spite being duly notified. Showshappening appealed the decision, raising two grievances. The core argument centred on a violation of due process and nat- ural justice. The company argued that while it was notified of the claim, the co-sued party, NNG Promotions Limited (C 31353), was never notified of the claim at the ad- dress provided by the MCCAA and therefore did not partici- pate in the proceedings. Show- shappening pointed out that this breached the requirement by the arbitrator to take steps to ensure all parties are notified. Showshappening also argued that it was merely a "booking agent", responsible only for the €56.00 booking fee. It contended that it should not be condemned to refund the €800 ticket price, which it claimed it never re- ceived, and that the tribunal erred by assuming Showshap- pening was the event organiser. The Court of Appeal accepted the argument regarding proce- dural violation. Judge Mintoff noted that the claimant clearly knew that both Showshappening Limited and NNG Promotions Limited were involved in the concert's or- ganisation, yet the acts showed clearly that NNG Promotions Limited was never notified. The court stated that the tribunal failed in its obligation to ensure every party was notified before proceeding to judgment. The court declared that it has a duty to ensure the tribunal does not take a position or issue a de- cision before hearing all parties involved. Consequently, the first grievance (lack of due process) was accepted. Crucially, the court declined to address the merits of the case (the Second Grievance re- garding the €656.00 amount). It ruled that it would be unjust to analyse the substance of the decision when the tribunal de- cided without giving every party the opportunity to respond and present evidence. The final order mandates that the case acts must be sent back to the tribunal so that a date can be fixed for the notification of NNG Promotions Limited, al- lowing the tribunal the opportu- nity to hear what this company has to say regarding the claim- ant's demands. Costs were ordered to remain unassessed at this stage. The Ed Sheeran concert in question dates back to the summer of 2024 Concertgoer claims seat location was far from what was advertised Bar fight lands man in the dock charged with grievous bodily harm A 31-year-old teacher residing in Mosta was arraigned in court and charged with grevious bodily harm. Steven Schembri was also charged with breaching the public peace. On 14 November, the victim filed a report at the Siġġiewi Police Station, stating that he had been assaulted a week earlier in a bar in Żebbuġ. The victim explained that he did not initially know the identity of his attacker, but people present on the scene of the attack identified him. He also presented a medical cer- tificate certifying grievous injuries. When asked why the report was made a week after the incident, the victim explained that he was scared to leave the house because his vision was blurred. Following the report, police in- vestigations commenced. The in- vestigating officer said he spoke to the victim personally and CCTV footage from the area was ana- lysed. From the footage, the per- son who attacked the victim was identified as the accused. The court ruled the arrest was valid. He plead not guilty. Bail was requested for the ac- cused. The prosecution objected, citing the gravity of the charges and a fear of contamination of ev- idence. The defence countered, stating that the incident occurred on 8 November, more than a month ago. A warrant of arrest had been issued on 14 November, yet the accused was only arrested yester- day. If there had truly been a risk of evidence being tampered with, the prosecution "had ample time to act." The defence further argued that the alleged victim does not know the accused personally and knows no details about him. He insisted that the parties are strangers and therefore contamination of evi- dence was impossible. He added that the police have full CCTV coverage of the incident, and the footage shows a clear and unob- structed view of the altercation from a good angle. With such strong visual evidence, he argued, "contamination does not exist." The defence also noted that when police went on site on the day of the incident, no action was taken by police. He argued that the accused is also in stable employment , has a child whom he co-parents with his partner and comes from a sup- portive family. The court heard that the accused is pursuing a master's degree, gives part-time lessons, and plays first-division football. His lawyer described him as a stable individual with a com- pletely clean criminal record. The accused's father also offered to act as a third-party guarantor, undertaking responsibility should his son fail to obey bail conditions and stating he would immediately inform the inspector if anything were amiss. The prosecution agreed that the accused never had a brush with the law. In delivering his remarks, the magistrate acknowledged that the incident may have been a one- off, but emphasised that this did not diminish its seriousness. He stressed that a person must face the consequences of their actions, even if they occurred only once. The magistrate reminded him that he must serve as an example both to the students he teaches and to his own daughter. The court ultimately granted the man bail against a €2,000 deposit and a €8,000 personal guarantee. A curfew between 10:00pm and 6:00am was imposed. A protec- tion order was also issued. Inspector James Mallia and At- torney General lawyer Miryea Mifsud prosecuted. Magistrate Kevan Azzopardi presided. MAYA GALEA mgalea@mediatoday.com.mt