Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/224217
47 Opinion maltatoday, SUNDAY, 8 DECEMBER 2013 Self-employed pensioner may still claim loss of earnings T he Court awarded damages for loss of earnings to a taxi driver who at the time of the accident was 61 years of age. This was decided by Mr Justice Silvio Meli on 4 December 2013 in the case Alfred Axisa vs Roger Attard and Citadel Insurance plc. Axisa had instituted a lawsuit against Roger Attard after he was injured in a traffic accident on 5 May 2003 at George Borg Olivier Street, St Julian's. During the lawsuit Axisa died and Emanuela Axisa took over the case. Axisa was claiming damages emerging from his taxi and injuries he sustained from the accident. The Insurance Malcolm Mifsud mmifsud@mifsudadvocates.com.mt Company Citadel Insurance plc was called into the action and pleaded that this insured client Roger Attard was not totally responsible for the accident. Attard did not file a statement of defence and therefore, the Court concluded that the defendant was totally responsible for the accident. This was due to his excessive speed. From the evidence produced, it resulted that Attard has skidded into the opposite lane and crashed into Axisa's taxi. With the impact the car spun and the plaintiff lost consciousness. The Court examined two medical reports of Alfred Axisa. From the first report it resulted that Mr Axisa was taken to hospital four hours after the accident and from the X-rays the plaintiff broke his left knee and suffered an impact in his back. He spent two months with a plastered leg, however, Axisa continued to complain about his knee. In a second medical report, it resulted that Axisa did not limp, however, felt uncomfortable when he knelt. The doctors calculated that he had 2% permanent disability. The Court held that the declaration of disability was illogical since all the medical experts held that the plaintiff had recovered from the consequences of the collision, but at the same time allocated a permanent disability percentage. With regard to the calculation of damages, Mr Justice Meli analysed the documentation presented in the case. From these documents the plaintiff suffered €6,732.24 in damages to his vehicle. As regards to loss of earnings, the plaintiff was 61 years of age when the accident took place and died five years later. The Court took into consideration his income, increases to his income, inflation and that the Court reduced 20% since he is receiving a lump sum and the fact he was self-employed and had no intention to retire. Mr Justice Mali concluded that the income lost was €30,500. Therefore the Court ordered Attard to pay a total of €37,232.24 to Axisa's heir. Malcolm Mifsud is a partner with Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates The Court held that the declaration of disability was illogical since all the medical experts held that the plaintiff had recovered from the collision Structural changes approved in Mdina A 2008 planning application for the sanctioning of "alterations and mezzanine[e] floor constructed in hollow section[s] and covered in timber" in a Grade 1 scheduled Mdina premises was initially refused on a number of planning grounds. The premises were nonetheless covered by a valid trading license to operate as a restaurant. In its decision, the MEPA objected to the proposed development since it alleged that the structural alterations amount to "an adverse impact on an important archaeological site or area" and would thus conflict with Structure Plan policy ARC 3, which inter alia provides that areas of archaeological interest should be safeguarded and preserved. In addition, the Authority pointed out that the proposed development would change the external and internal appearance of a Grade 1 listed building. Against this background, the Authority insisted that the proposed structural works detract from the historical value of this important building, thus in conflict with Structure Plan Policy UCO 7 (which essentially seeks to preserve buildings of outstanding architectural or historical interest in their entirety). More so, the Environmental Health Directorate objected to the said development Robert Musumeci MEPAwatch after it held that the proposed sanitary facilities lacked adequate ventilation and the head room of the intermediate floor (created by the mezzanine timber structure) is less than the statutory 2.75 metres. In conclusion, the Commission maintained that the proposal would result in intensified class 6 operations, thus running counter to North West Local Plan policy NWMD2. As a final observation, the Authority highlighted that the said application cannot be "considered further" unless all pending illegalities (which in this case consisted in the removal of the original flag stones) were addressed (regulation 14 of Legal Notice 514 of 2010). In his appeal before the Environment and Planning Tribunal, applicant counter argued that no adverse impact was envisaged since the proposal did not contemplate any excavation works, adding that Against this background, the Authority insisted that the proposed structural works detract from the historical value of this important building the premises were solely restored and rehabilitated "skont I-ahjar arti u sengha" (according to good building practice). Appellant further maintained that the flagstones which were allegedly removed without the Authority's consent were damaged. In his conclusive remarks, applicant added that notwithstanding the clear height of the mezzanine being less than 2.75 metres, the premises are adequately served with a generous level of ventilation and light from "two existing windows at the same level which also provide a through-breeze". For its part, the Environment and Planning Tribunal observed that a larger quantity of floor slabs, similar to the ones that were allegedly removed by appellant without the Authority's prior consent, were also removed during the course of restoration works carried out in relation to the nearby Mdina fortifications. In the circumstances, while expressing disapproval towards applicant's abusive behaviour, the tribunal considered his acts to be "trivial". As a result, the Tribunal approved the permit subject to applicant submitting a detailed restoration method statement with respect to the re-integration of the missing limestone slabs. On the other hand, the Tribunal did not object to the introduction of the mezzanine floor.