Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/594552
58 maltatoday, SUNDAY, 1 NOVEMBER 2015 Opinion T he First Hall of the Civil Court presided by Ms Justice Jacqueline Padovani Grima ordered that a taxed bill be corrected although the time had lapsed within which corrections can be made, due to the substantial mistake made by the Court Registrar. This was decided in a judgement Future Focus Limited -v- Registratur tal-Qorti, Direttur Generali Dipartiment tal-Kuntratti, and Kullegg Malti ta' l-Arti, Xjenza u Teknologija, delivered on 26 October 2015. In its application the plaintiff company explained that on 26 March, 2013 the court had delivered its judgement in the case Future Focus Limited -v- the director general of the Contracts Department and the Malta College of Arts, Science and Technology. The Court Registrar then issued a tax bill listing the court costs and legal fees. In it €4,099.98 pertained to the Registrar and €4,961.21 were the law yer's fees, while €1,653.74 were the legal procurator's fees. In all the total costs and fees amounted to €26,834.30. The plaintiff company explained further that erroneously, the taxed bill was calculated on €434,682, while it should have been calculated on €296,388. This mistake was accepted by the law yers of the parties in the case. The company asked the court to correct this taxed bill and base itself on the value of the case, being €296,834.30. The Director General of the Contracts Department filed a statement of defence explaining that this action could not have taken place because the company had already paid these judicial costs and fees and therefore, a clear indication that they were accepted. Furthermore, the action could not take place for another reason, which was that according to Article 64(1) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure, a month had passed from when it was issued. Furthermore, the DG did not think it was an error, since the sum of €432,682 was mentioned before judgement had been delivered. The Director of the Courts submitted that the taxed bill was correctly calculated. The taxed bill is calculated from what is being contested and debated in court. Furthermore the Director held that the company was alleging damages to the higher amount and therefore, the taxed bill should be calculated on that amount. The court in its judgement said it had analysed the evidence brought before it and also the submissions made by the parties. It observed that the difference was substantial and amounted to over €140,000. This meant that the plaintiff company had paid on the basis of an erroneous tax bill. The time period of one month mentioned in Article 64 of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure had lapsed by just a few days and although the payment had been effected, the Court felt that it would not have been just for the Department of Justice to benefit from judicial costs it was not owed and this at the citizen's expense. For this reason the court ordered that a new tax bill be issued on the basis of €296,338. A n application entitled "To sanction apartment at fifth floor level, proposed alteration at fifth floor to create three units and to construct two overlying penthouses" was approved by the Environment and Planning Commission subject to applicant paying a monetary contribution (equivalent to €3,922) towards the Commuted Parking Payment Scheme (CPPS) due to the resulting parking shortfall. The site in question is located in Triq Louis Mountbatten, St Paul's Bay Although the applicant was bound to effect such payment within the standard six-month time-frame, failure of which the permit would be dismissed, he requested the Commission to be granted a further two-month extension. The Commission granted an additional two-month period and yet applicant failed to address his financial commitment. Consequently, the permit was referred to the Commission and eventually dismissed due to applicant's failure to abide with the permit conditions. Following the dismissal of the permit, applicant decided to send a €3,922 cheque to MEPA. At the same time, applicant lodged an appeal before the Environment and Planning Tribunal, stating that the permit can now be reactivated since the payment was duly effected. In reaction, the MEPA objected to applicant's request and reminded the Tribunal that the permit was approved subject to "the payment of CPPS contribution for the parking shortfall and a fine in view of sanctioning". The MEPA insisted that the permit was dismissed due to applicant failing to effect the relative payment within the extended eight-month time-frame. The Authority further recalled that "the payment was carried out in full during the process of the appeal" and warned that "should this application be overturned by the Tribunal, a precedent will be created where other development applications will neglect and abuse the importance of payment against conditions imposed in permit." In its assessment, the Tribunal found that appellant was not contesting the Commission's decision to dismiss the permit. Furthermore, it was uncontested that the payment was only effected once the permit was dismissed. Nonetheless, the Tribunal observed that the Authority did not refer the "late payment" back to the creditor (in this case, appellant), notwithstanding the fact that such payment was made following dismissal. In the circumstances, the Tribunal ordered the Authority to issue the permit since it was evident that the Authority had "accepted" the payment. robert@rmperiti.com Robert Musumeci is a warranted architect and civil engineer. He also holds a Masters degree in conservation and a law degree MEPA ordered to reactivate a dismissed permit once it accepted a late payment Court allows corrections of taxed bill although it had been paid Robert Musumeci MEPAwatch The Authority did not refer the 'late payment' back to the creditor though the payment was made following dismissal The difference in the taxed bill was substantial and it would not have been just for the Department of Justice to benefit from judicial costs it was not owed Malcolm Mifsud mmifsud@mifsudadvocates.com.mt bill although it had been paid mmifsud@mifsudadvocates.com.mt bill although it had been paid bill although it had been paid