Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/922844
50 maltatoday SUNDAY 7 JANUARY 2018 A lthough a claim listed in an application may be unclear, other premises mentioned in the same application may throw light on what is being asked for. This was decided by the Small Claims Tribunal in Lorenz Ltd v Maria Addolorata Di Pasquale and Giovanni on 18 December 2017. In their application the plaintiff company explained that they had sold merchandise to a restaurant run by the defendants, but were never paid. The plaintiffs asked the Court to order the two defendants to pay €617.46. The defendants replied in a statement of defence, where they pointed out that there was an agreement between the parties which automatically renewed itself. Furthermore, the issue also includes the lease of a shop sign and a coffee machine, which machine was given, without the defendants asking for it. They also claimed that the only pending bill was of €58.11 The Tribunal, presided by Dr Claudio Zammit looked at the evidence brought before it and saw that the agreement bound the defendants to purchase coffee exclusively from the plaintiff and the plaintiff allowed the use of a coffee machine, grinder and shop sign. The background of the case is when the director of the plaintiff company, Raffaele Ugliano, heard that the restaurant was to close and went to remove the machine and request payment of the pending invoices. The atmosphere of the meeting required the police to be called. The defendants wanted to cut all ties with the plaintiff. The defendants claimed that the only pending bill was of €58.11 and they wanted the return of the unused coffee and shop sign. Ugliano refused to accept. The Tribunal pointed out that the shop sign should have been deposited in court for the defendants to no longer be responsible for it. The defendants argued that the case concerned payment of merchandise and the sign was not part of the case. However, from the application and the documents attached to it the plaintiff company was asking for payment of the sign. From case law the premises in application may indicate the requests made. In Nicholas Cini noe v Mario Agius decided by the Court of the Appeal on 4 May 1990 held that the premises of an application may throw light of the requests if they are not clear. The Tribunal held that case law leans towards the Courts trying to save an action and therefore, the Tribunal should do the same. The Tribunal pointed out that the defendants failed to convince it by stating that they should not pay for the coffee. They did not have an option to return the coffee, since there was no defect. Neither was there evidence that payment should not be paid upon delivery. With regard to a small coffee machine which was given to the defendants, the Tribunal said it was clearly a gift and should not be included in the claim. The Tribunal then ruled that the defendants have to pay €497.46 to the plaintiff company. Dr Malcolm Mifsud is partner Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates Opinion A development planning application entitled "Extension to an existing residential unit" was initially turned down by the then Malta Environment and Planning Authority (the MEPA). The building in question is located within an area of Level 3 Scheduled Area of Ecological Importance in Mosta. In particular, the Commission was not convinced that the building had been used as a residence, in spite of a declaration signed by a Notary stating otherwise. To justif y its decision, the Commission gave the following reasons: 1. The proposed development runs counter to the provisions of policy 6.3 of the Rural Policy & Design Guidance (RPDG) 2014 in that no proof has been submitted that the existing property is a legitimate or pre-1978 dwelling. 2. The proposal thus entails the unjustified creation of a new dwelling in a Rural Area which is also a Level 3 Scheduled Area of Ecological Importance; 3. The proposal is not in line with the Thematic Objective 1 of the Strategic Plan for Environment & Development for limiting the land take up for uses which are not necessary or legitimate in rural areas; 4. The proposed dwelling would therefore lead to the unjustified formalisation of a rural area and detract from the visual quality of the open countryside; 5. The proposed development runs counter to the provisions of policy CG 22 of the Central Malta Local Plan Local Plan which stipulate that protected and scheduled areas in the Rural Area are to be conserved. In reaction, applicant filed an appeal before the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal, insisting that the permit should have been issued. Applicant, now appellant, referred once again to the Notary declaration stating in unequivocal terms that the building was used as a residence. The proposed extension resulted in a gross f loor area of 150 square metres, which according to applicant, was way below the maximum area permitted by policy. In reply, the case officer representing the Authority reiterated that the proposal was objectionable from a planning point of view, adding that applicant had failed to furnish a copy of the electoral register to substantiate the Notary's declaration. In its assessment, the Tribunal referred to Policy 6.3 of the Rural Policy and Design Guidance (2014) which specifies that extensions to existing dwellings in the Rural Area will only be considered if it can be proven that the existing property has been used as a residence prior to 1992 or that the dwelling dates back to pre- 1978. In this case, the Tribunal was satisfied that a permit for the construction of a dwelling was indeed issued back in September 1958. In addition, the Tribunal observed inter alia that the present building had existed prior to 1969. Against this background, the appeal was upheld. Dr Musumeci is an advocate and an architect with an interest in development planning law. www.robertmusumeci.com Robert Musumeci Malcolm Mifsud Unclear claims may be deduced from premises Mosta dwelling extension approved Dwelling extension approved on the strength of a 1958 planning permit