Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/563633
50 maltatoday, SUNDAY, 30 AUGUST 2015 Opinion M s Justice Miriam Hayman, in the First Hall of the Civil Court, allowed a warrant of prohibitory injunction although the same property is subject to another warrant issued by third parties. This was decided on 24 August, 2015 in Martin Grima Limited -v- Mediterranean Flower Products Limited. In their application Martin Grima Limited explained that on 22 June, 2011 they had entered into a promise of sale agreement with Mediterranean Flower Products Limited to purchase land in the limits of Mosta, Attard and Rabat. The agreement was extended several times and the last extension expired on 23 June, 2015. The defendant company failed to appear on the final contract and therefore a judicial letter was filed on 19 June, 2015 calling upon it to appear. Therefore, the applicants are asking the court to prohibit any sale, lease or any form of transfer of this property. Mediterranean Flower Products Limited held among other pleas that the warrant of prohibitory injunction cannot be issued since there is already another warrant prohibiting the transfer of the same property. This was filed by Four X Limited. The defendant company held that this is the reason why the promise of sale agreement was extended several times. The sale could not proceed because of the first warrant of prohibitory injunction. Martin Grima Limited then replied that it is entitled to issue its own warrant, since it wanted to protect its own interest. If the defendant company and Four X Limited were to come to an agreement, then Martin Grima Limited would not have its claim protected, especially if Four X Limited issued a counter warrant. The Court in its decision held that there are two requisites in order for the court to issue a precautionary warrant and these were that the applicant has a right which has to be protected and that the court is satisfied that there is a prima facie right. Prima Facie means that the right exists on the face of it and the court does not need to enter into the merits of the case. In this particular case the dispute arises from a promise of sale agreement and that the defendant company failed to appear for the contract, irrespective of the fact that it was notified with a judicial letter. The applicant company is arguing that if the warrant is not upheld then the defendant company may transfer the land in question freely. The defendants are denying this as there is another warrant in place on the same land. The Court held that there is a prima facie right to be protected. It is also clear that Four X Limited also has a claim on the same property, however, this does not necessarily block Martin Grima Limited from filing its own warrant. Four X Limited is not a party to the promise of sale agreement. The Court then moved to uphold the warrant against Mediterranean Flower Products Limited. Malcolm Mifsud, Partner, Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates Malcolm Mifsud mmifsud@mifsudadvocates.com.mt mmifsud@mifsudadvocates.com.mt A renewal planning application for the construction of seven shops, 46 apartments, 57 garages at basement level and five penthouses was approved by the MEPA board, despite strong objections from neighbouring residents. The application was submitted by the Housing Authority and relates to a site in Swatar. Prior to the renewal application being approved, the MEPA issued an outline permit and a full development permit on the same site. Following approval of the third application (the renewal application) in 2014, a number of residents living in the vicinity filed an appeal before the Environment and Planning Tribunal, stating that the proposed residential development amounts to "overdevelopment" in a site which was designated for community facilities surrounded by a public garden. For his part, the architect representing the Housing Authority reacted by stating that the permit subject to appeal corresponds to "a renewal of a previous permit" which was issued in 2009, adding that the latest drawings "do not include any changes to the drawings or conditions of the previously approved permit". Moreover, the architect remarked that the relative planning policies "did not change in the interim period" and it thus follows that "the renewal application is in full conformity with all current MEPA and other relevant policies." In his detailed reply, the architect highlighted that the proposed use (that is, social housing) conforms with Article 2 of the Ecclesiastical Entities Act 1992 which states that any activity on such sites (being registered with the Joint Office) shall "meet the country's most pressing social requirements." In its assessment, the Tribunal made immediate reference to Article 69 (4) of Chapter 504 of the Laws of Malta, which inter alia states that "the Authority may, on the application of the person holding the licence or development permission, extend the said licence or permission to such further period or periods as it may consider reasonable. More so, the Tribunal made further reference to a court decision in the names Roseanne Gafa vs MEPA, in which the court held that the authority may not "arbitrarily" choose to dismiss a request for a permit renewal should it transpire, of course, that the policies were not changed in the interim period. In the circumstances, the Tribunal observed that the planning policies were unchanged and went on to conclude that that there is no reason at law to sustain the objectors' request. The Tribunal therefore concluded that the permit is to remain valid. robert@rmperiti.com Robert Musumeci is a warranted architect and civil engineer. He also holds a Masters Degree in Conservation and a degree in Law Robert Musumeci MEPAwatch Tribunal rejects third party appeal against Housing Authority project Download the MaltaToday App now MEPA may not "arbitrarily" choose to dismiss a request for a permit renewal Injunction is permitted even though a third party has another injunction on the same property 'There are two requisites for the court to issue a precautionary warrant: the applicant has a right which has to be protected, and the court is satisfied that there is a prima facie right'